Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theopanism

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 was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theopanism

Theopanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really a thing, for an encyclopedia. Citation needed tags have festooned it for a decade, unmet. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. And the first {{cn}} is erroneous, for example, as the source is provided. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew D., might have been unclear here. This is not a real thing. There can be no 'effort' because there is no consistent philosophy. Just a word people have come up with at different times to mean different things. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistent philosophy is an oxymoron and so you could make the same complaint about any philosophical concept. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (in some fashion). I make no claim to understand the religious concepts, but base these comments on language. The article appears, in its current state, to be about the word theopanism. That is inappropriate per WP:NOTDIC. If this concept is closely related to another religious topic covered elsewhere, such as Pantheism, then this article's content should be merged wherever most appropriate. If the concept is distinct, then article needs to be cleaned up to make that clear. Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree, article needs more work, but having a look at Google Books, this seems to be a legitimate concept in theology - related to both the Jesuits and the Lutherans (it seems). Article needs to be more well rounded. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article may be in a very bad current state, and appears to not properly cover the subject - but the subject does exist, as a search on Google Scholar indicates [1]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.