Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical pantheism

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 merge to Pantheism. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classical pantheism[edit]

User:Naturalistic was trying to nominate this but wasn't completing the process properly. I have let this user know. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe he was just playing around or changed his mind. It's hard to evaluate with no reason given for the proposed deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment he left on the talk page is probably his rationale:

This page is not only devoid of all sources, but is completely misleading and inaccurate. Naturalistic (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

- Gigs (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources? I don't need no stinkin' sources! I spit on sources! That may have been OK in 2003, but not anymore. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some potential sources that mention classical pantheism in passing, but most don't really differentiate it as a separate concept from other pantheism. Gigs (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pantheism As per my comment above, not a distinct enough concept in the source material. Gigs (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PantheismNaturalistic's comments about 'misleading and inaccurate' are questionable but merge would be appropriate, will attempt to do so given some time Jlrobertson (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (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.