Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitheism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep now that some references to verify use of this term have been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Unitheism
Unitheism seems to be a neologism, currently used by about 3 writers and a handful of other people, for something akin to pantheism. Apparently, it has yet to be picked up by the mainstream, or referenced in any major publication. That puts it a bit shy of the requirements on WP:V. Delete; neologism, unverifiable GTBacchus(talk) 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism for panentheism, noting with irony that "unitheism" and "tototheism" are both Lindsay King's attempts to distinguish panentheism from pantheism and both got AfD'ed as neologisms for the latter. -- Jonel | Speak 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The top two Google results are a forum post and an unrelated reference to a Malaysian death metal band by this name - not a good sign.  The creator cites Tripod sites and forum posts as evidence.  It might have been a borderline transwiki to Wikitionary, but the decidely inappropriate tone of the entry and its probable neologism status make me want to wipe the slate.  Spamming Inappropriately long postings to AfD instead of improving the article speaks against it. Durova 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply The comment that I chose to spam the discussion rather than improve the article is inaccurate.  I am new at this.  If I do not know the conventions here then I apologise.  But I essentially wrote the basic form of the current entry.  It was later edited, but its basic message and structure survived edtorializing by existing Wiki members.  I did improve the entry.--The Boomer 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)
 * Comment there are two anons involved here - Lindsay King himself, the article's creator, and someone else who wants to see the article kept, but without reference to Lindsay King; that's the anon who posted here. I think you may be confusing the two.  Neither of them knows the ways of Wikipedia yet; please try not to WP:BITE.  Nobody's trying to "spam AfD". -GTBacchus(talk) 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign!)
 * Wording changed per your advice. Vote remains the same.  Regards, Durova 22:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Both have now registered accounts. User:Lindsayking and User:The Boomer, respectively.  I agree that the "spamming" of AfD was because of unfamiliarity with WP. -- Jonel | Speak 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and add to Wiktionary. Although the original article was rambling, confused and unsupported, the current disambiguation is a useful summary of the various meanings and uses of the word.  See references below.--The Boomer 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable neologism - this isn't the place to make up new words. DreamGuy 05:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply It is not a new word. It is a very old word.  Please see the discussion page for references and request for guidance on what is acceptable demonstration of a word and its definitions.--The Boomer 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm convinced by the sources presented on the talk page. It's not a common concept, but it seems that a good handful of religious thinkers have been talking and publishing about certain ideas they're calling "unitheism".  Google may not know much about it, but it seems to be real all the same; imagine. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Unitheism for references and discussion.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.