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 delete. Sr13 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article consists of detailed yet wholly unattributed speculation about a newly-termed religious belief. Searches of EBSCO, JSTOR and Google Books turned up just one publication which even includes the word "omnitheism" or "omnitheist": a 1999 book which says an omnitheist is "someone who believes that God is everywhere."^[1] That definition is completely unrelated to this article, which is a prime example of original research and has been prominently tagged as such since 2007-03-30. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not appear to be be a notable use of the term; total lack of sourcing, along with a variety of different uses implies to me that this is basically a niche neologism, used by different people in different ways. Does not appear to be notable enough to be encyclopedic. --Haemo 05:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn and badly-defined neologism, not to mention WP:OR. Ford MF 05:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I cant find any scholarly use of the term. John Vandenberg 06:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, search engine didn't find many hits, so probably non-notable. Also has no references, so probably original research. *Cremepuff222* 19:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pantheism for which this neologism is presumably a synonym. The new word is an illegitimate hybrid between Latin Omnis - all and Greek Theos God. Such hybrids are to be deplored. The creator needs to establish that his concept is somthing else. Peterkingiron 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book mentioned above says an omnitheist is one who thinks God is everywhere, but this article (and the pages linked to in its External links section) give a very different definition. Neither equates "omnitheism" and pantheism, so I don't see a warrant for redirecting the former to the latter; such a redirect would be confusing for anyone who uses the term and useless for anyone who doesn't. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many academic and scientific coinages are mixtures of Greek and and latin roots -- indeed many later latin words are borrowings from the greek. There is nothing wrong with such a coinage. The problem is tha tthis is a coinage, with no apparent notability. If it had notability, the etyomology would not be a problem. as for "illegitimate hybrids", IMO there is no such thing in english: "The English language is the result of the attempts of Norman men-at-arms to make dates with Saxon barmaids, and no more legitimate than any of the other results." -H. Beam Piper DES ^(talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources can be cited that establish the widespread use of this term, and its consequent notability. As per Elembis, a redirect would not be helpful. A redirect could also be reverted to the current article at any time -- an afd cannot make a decision to redirect binding unless it is "delete and replace with a redirect to..." DES ^(talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research/soap boxing. DreamGuy 20:58, 11 June 2007 (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.