211:- the article has been rated 'Start' by, and is supported by the WikiProject Religion, and has had a fair number of editors over several years. It seems to me that having been rated above stub as part of the WikiProject members, we should consult why people with an interest in the project felt 'The article has a meaningful amount of good content.'
292:
with pandeism and remove non-attributable information. Ask a philosopher or theologion whether they have heard of the term or believe it to be semantically meaningless. Since the term "panendeism" is etymologically related to pandeism as "panentheism" is etymologically related to pantheism, it makes
257:
demonstrate anything in particular. And a rating as "start" merely indicates that it has (in one person's eyes) grown past the point where it can be considered a stub. I've dropped a notification at the project talk page, so project members can comment if they wish, but
Wikiproject opinions don't
277:
on the basis of the information in the article, it was made up one day by a single person "The term panendeism was purportedly coined in late 2000 by Larry
Copling in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, " and it seems other people using similar terms may or may not mean the same thing. From other postings,
417:
result in the deletion of the article. It was kept for further research to be done (which then revealed that the oldest references were hard to turn up because they were in German). I do note that panendeism term gets zero Google Books hits, in any language. Perhaps
220:
I've invited the user who added the banner to join the discussion here. It's true that the article has had 54 edits and a little more than a dozen non-anonymous editors. However, I think it's interesting to see how little the article has changed from its
293:
no sense to posit that the philosophy does not exist. It is a metaphysical or theological stance, not a religion, so it does not have a "congregation" or organized group of believers per se. It can be covered in the section on
312:
The problem is that when you remove all of the non-attributable information, nothing is left. Without sources, the article doesn't belong on
Knowledge, and the sentence you proposed violates the guideline
487:, but I don't see any evidence that this really a notable or widely accepted conception of God among religious scholars of any stripe (aside from the alleged coiner who didn't actual coin the term).
178:
There are no real sources here -- getting a local paper to mention a word you've coined is not the sort of source on which to build an encyclopedia entry about a supposedly-notable belief system.
131:
309:; however, at present there is no attributed support for this claim." I believe this would be the best course of action. -- Brian 17:53, April 11, 2007 (UTC)
253:
Also note: anyone can add a project banner to an article, and anyone can rate an article. So the fact that it has a project banner and start rating doesn't
190:, but the "local paper" mention in the article was five years before the word was supposedly coined (ergo, Copling is wrong about having coined the word).
440:
355:
200:
70:
345:
for support (at least the latter explicitly says "Panendeism is a sub-category of Deism", and compares it to panentheism). Cheers!
17:
104:
99:
108:
431:
346:
191:
61:
237:
section), but I don't think they've moved it out of original research territory. Anyway, thanks for the comment. =) —
91:
511:
36:
371:
510:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
337:(or deism) saying that Larry Copling has proposed panendeism as a deistic variety of panentheism and cite to
370:
An old WP mirror has an interesting prior discussion leading to an earlier deletion of this article in
233:. An anonymous editor wrote the article, and others have cleaned it up (and changed the content of the
496:
479:
sounds like it might be worth a brief mention as a possible variant at either or both of the articles
459:
408:
380:
328:
284:
267:
248:
215:
182:
170:
157:
95:
390:
87:
79:
456:
403:
323:
243:
152:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
258:
actually trump a more general consensus (although they can often offer more expert advice).
397:. I didn't notice the difference myself until I was several pages into the discussion. =) —
314:
475:(except for the somewhat contradictory research into the origins of the term). The notion
492:
263:
455:-- I'm not finding any reliable, third party sources containing the term "panendeism." --
472:
468:
212:
139:
398:
318:
238:
167:
147:
143:
125:
484:
427:
334:
302:
53:
488:
259:
179:
48:(however, per the discussion below, I will merge mention of some points into
306:
480:
386:
376:
294:
280:
57:
338:
423:
49:
504:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
342:
297:
by a single sentence: "It has been suggested that the term
146:, and without such sources this article is unencyopedic. —
142:. Self-published sites and a letter to the editor are not
230:
226:
222:
121:
117:
113:
374:. I am not sure how it fits into the edit history.
385:The VFD you mentioned is interesting, but it's for
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
514:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
301:can be applied to a variant of pandeism as
278:there is not yet an actual congregation.
471:(actually protologism), almost entirely
389:(a considerably better article), not
7:
229:(until the VFD tag was added): see
339:http://panendeism.org/default.aspx
317:. "Has been suggested" by whom? —
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
333:Well, you could put a line in
1:
75:13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
531:
497:21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
460:11:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
445:02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
409:00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
381:00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
360:04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
343:http://www.panendeism.com/
329:19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
285:00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
268:02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
249:00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
216:23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
205:21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
183:18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
171:13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
158:06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
507:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
413:Also, that VFD did
138:This appears to be
235:Origin of the term
473:original research
407:
327:
247:
156:
140:original research
522:
509:
438:
401:
353:
321:
305:is a variant of
241:
198:
150:
144:reliable sources
129:
111:
68:
34:
530:
529:
525:
524:
523:
521:
520:
519:
518:
512:deletion review
505:
495:
432:
347:
266:
192:
102:
86:
83:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
528:
526:
517:
516:
500:
499:
491:
462:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
287:
272:
271:
270:
262:
251:
231:the difference
206:
185:
173:
136:
135:
82:
77:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
527:
515:
513:
508:
502:
501:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
461:
458:
454:
451:
444:
443:
439:
437:
436:
429:
425:
421:
416:
412:
411:
410:
405:
400:
396:
394:
388:
384:
383:
382:
379:
378:
373:
369:
366:
359:
358:
354:
352:
351:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
325:
320:
316:
311:
310:
308:
304:
300:
296:
291:
288:
286:
283:
282:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
252:
250:
245:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:first version
219:
218:
217:
214:
210:
207:
204:
203:
199:
197:
196:
189:
186:
184:
181:
177:
174:
172:
169:
165:
162:
161:
160:
159:
154:
149:
145:
141:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
76:
74:
73:
69:
67:
66:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
506:
503:
476:
464:
457:Keesiewonder
452:
441:
434:
433:
419:
414:
392:
375:
367:
356:
349:
348:
298:
289:
279:
274:
254:
234:
208:
201:
194:
193:
187:
175:
163:
137:
71:
64:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
485:panentheism
467:, apparent
428:panentheism
335:panentheism
303:panentheism
54:Panentheism
430:? Cheers!
299:panendeism
166:per nom.
88:Panendeism
80:Panendeism
469:neologism
315:WP:WEASEL
307:pantheism
209:weak keep
481:pandeism
387:Pandeism
295:Pandeism
213:Thespian
132:View log
58:Pandeism
399:Elembis
368:Comment
319:Elembis
239:Elembis
225:to its
188:No vote
168:Anville
148:Elembis
105:protect
100:history
477:itself
465:Delete
453:Delete
435:bd2412
350:bd2412
275:Delete
255:really
195:bd2412
176:Delete
164:Delete
109:delete
65:bd2412
56:, and
46:Delete
489:Xtifr
424:deism
422:into
420:merge
395:deism
290:Merge
260:Xtifr
180:Xoloz
126:views
118:watch
114:links
50:Deism
16:<
493:tälk
483:and
404:talk
372:2005
324:talk
264:tälk
244:talk
227:last
153:talk
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
426:or
415:not
391:Pan
377:DGG
341:or
281:DGG
130:– (
60:).
393:en
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
52:,
442:T
406:)
402:(
357:T
326:)
322:(
246:)
242:(
202:T
155:)
151:(
134:)
128:)
90:(
72:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.