Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entitism

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.

Entitism[edit]

The result was delete. Goodnightmush^Talk 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A belief system. The number of Google hits suggests original research or at least non-notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- This seems to confirm that it's not original research, and is probably notable. The article itself could do with some attention from someone who knows more about philosophy and religion than I do. Reyk _YO! 02:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it just me, or does that link have nothing to do with the belief system described in the article? (See, I'm kind of tired right now and may be missing something.) "A belief based fundamentally on a meditative understanding of equality among all living things" is not "the view that it is possible to talk of instants [from the context, I'd say that means the smallest possible increments of time] as particulars [things that have their own discrete existence, as opposed to things that exist only in other things] and make sense of individual instants having, in some sense, an existence." I'm too tired to trust my judgment on this article (and I'm biased against it because of its fairly poor grammar), but I'd say it should be deleted because Google (minus Wikipedia, of course) turns up nothing on this belief system (the 22 ghits refer to about 22 other things) and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy knows nothing about it (surprisingly, given the link above). I agree that, if kept, the article needs attention; as it is, it doesn't make much sense. AnturiaethwrTalk 05:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment- Meh. I don't know. But both refer to the "entity" or unity of religions, so I'm assuming they're about the same thing. Reyk _YO! 05:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I guess I'm missing something, 'cause I don't see any reference to religion (not even what one would expect in thirteenth-century metaphysics) in your link. I'm willing to agree to disagree, though, especially since I'm fairly puzzled that the idea mentioned in that book wouldn't be in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it actully means anything.DGG (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original research proposing someone's newly minted philosophy. The connection between the links about molecular biology and the article's proposal of a philosophy based on universal human fungibility is too profound for my broken little mind to follow. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to basically be a protologism. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources can be found, it appears to be a non-notable belief system. Edward321 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (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.