Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polydeism

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no concensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 13:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polydeism
Appears to be a neologism. Also, who is Andrew Landrum, any why do we care what he thinks? --Tabor 01:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete drini &#9742; 02:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's getting very tiring seeing all these people reinvent Deism and feel that they need to have their own, unique, kewel name for it. Geogre 03:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have viewed the revision, and kudos to BD2412  talk, but I can't change my vote.  The reason is that it appears to be a term with no stable meaning or usage.  The two citations appear to use the term in different senses entirely, and the head matter remains particularly vexatious and personal. Geogre 14:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That may be true (although even Deism has had different meanings at different times). The Sered book is in my Univ library, I'm going over there to have a look at it this afternoon. -- BD2412 talk 15:04, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked up Sered's book and determined that her use is indeed different - she basically uses the term as a broader reference to polytheism (even where there is no 'theism' involved). She's empirically wrong, of course, because deism is not a term used to encompass all forms of spirituality, so polydeism shouldn't have any such meaning either. Bowman's use is the one that makes sense in light of the established meaning of deism. -- BD2412 talk 17:09, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * (Parenthetically, a comment: At least, before our contemporary times, Deism really only had two distinct meanings that surfaced a century or two apart.  The search for the Universal religion and the search for the Natural religion are enough alike that the two Deisms are at least in communication with each other.  Since our own day, however, folks have just been plain sloppy.  They'll call anything Deism, anything theosophy, anything polytheism, and anything Sufism.  That's why I was and remain opposed to this article.  It seems to be another example of sloppy spiritual tourism to serve original research and Deep Thoughts.) Geogre 14:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I retort, sir, that your objection is actually best met by keeping this article, in order to prevent future misuses by providing the definitive argument for the term meaning what at least two scholars attribute it to mean - frankly, polydeism has only one etymologically logical meaning (a multiple-god form of classical deism), and other uses are clearly misguided (just as are recent misuses of deism), and contrariwise, polydeism is the only etymologically logical portmanteau to describe this concept, which apparently goes as far back as Hume (unless you want to throw around unweildy phrases like polytheistic deism or deistic polytheism). Wikipedia is not the place to create new terms - which this is not - but it certainly is a place to show up clearly wrongful uses for what they are! -- BD2412 talk 15:40, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
 * If you were to rewrite the article to strike out the Deep Thoughts and simply explain that it is a portmanteau term licensed in the exception of Deism's arguments rather than in the execution of them, I would most likely feel that it should be kept. I don't like negative articles ("The word Herb is not pronounced with a vocal H in America, but is in RP England") ("There is no place called Tralfalmadore"), but since the term occurs (in the breach, as it were), a negative would be useful here to prevent mysticophilosophicomorphism.  The 18th c. also had a search for the natural language, but we don't hear folks wanting to claim that heritage. Geogre 16:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete the content as original research, but make the page redirect to polytheism as a plausible mistake name. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep, after BD2412]'s rewrite. This is a very good way to discuss a topic that would otherwise be original research. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer (talk) 22:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Xcali 03:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be neologism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Since it was recently rewritten by BD2412, I am moving to Neutral until this user or someone else elaborates more on it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism, original research. Megan1967 05:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per TheBainer. Radiant_* 08:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Article has been rewritten from scratch courtesy of BD, and the new article looks encyclopedic to me, so keep. Radiant_* 08:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- neologism, philosophical nonsense. (i.e. If you're a deist, it doesn't matter how many gods there are because you'll never make any contact anyway.) Haikupoet 03:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup. My vote may come too little too late, but this site indicates that the term is used in a chapter title in this 1996 book, and this site suggests that the term is used in other books as well. The term is also used quite explicitly in this 1997 document, which says:
 * Materialism (illustrated by the Epicureans), represented today by atheism, skepticism, and Deism. The materialist may acknowledge superior beings, but they do not believe in a Supreme Being. Epicureanism was founded about 300 BC by Epicurus. Their world view might be called “polydeism”: there are many gods, but they are merely superhuman beings; they are remote, uninvolved in the world, posing no threat and offering no hope to human beings. Epicureans regarded traditional religion and idolatry as harmless enough as long as the gods were not feared or expected to do or say anything.

Furthermore, I'd really like to know who this Andrew Landrum. Frankly, I'd like more time to investigate this. -- BD2412 talk 01:08, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * - just did a little rewrite along those lines, too. -- BD2412 talk 01:48, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite, well-referenced discussion of the concept. Kappa 04:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I originally posted this on VfD, but with the rewrite, it seems in order as a legitimate article. --Tabor 23:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Kappa Falphin 17:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.