Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Panendeism

--Abramsky (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Panendeism
This is not any kind of notable philosophy. It is a recently made-up word adopted by some non-notable persons on a self-published website. See the Wikipedia deletion discussion. What we have in this article are (A) quotes of some non-notable people that lack any Quotability, wherein they attempt to explain or defend a concept they made up that is not recognized by any reliable sources, and (B) quotes of some very notable people who are not speaking about this so-called philosophy, who assuredly never even heard of it. The former has no place in Wikiquote and the latter is flatly dishonest. — Ningauble (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. It's not a thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. JohnSanford (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC) It is a thing, the term has been in existence for at least 22 years and is included on both the Wikipedia and Wiktionary site. Additionally the term appears in numerous notable published works        and the website (panendeism.org) is mentioned in several of them as a reference. I see no reason why there should not be a quotes page. ~ JohnSanford (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * — JohnSanford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Platonianlike (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC) The page simply seeks to cite quotes that are in-line with the philosophy of Panendeism. Just as the Pandeist page cites many people who never identified as such, i.e, John Lennon and William Wordsworth - neither of which ever identified as Pandeists during their lives, but both of which had ideas that bear remarkable similarity to Pandeism. Because the ideas of the philosophy of Panendeism are directly based on the philosophies of these scientists, I don't think it's dishonest or unfair to include their quotes on this page.
 * Panendeism is cited in the following notable works:
 * World Religions at Your Fingertips by Michael McDowell Ph.D and Nathan Robert Brown, (2009), p. 323, ALPHA, ISBN 1592578462 (cites panendeism.org as authoritative ref.)
 * The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything by Alan H. Dawe, (2012), p. 48, Life Magic Publishing, ISBN 0473201143
 * — Platonianlike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Ziggythegreat (talk) 18:24 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * — Ziggythegreat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete, per nom and particularly the discussion at WP. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. SullivanBenjamin (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * — SullivanBenjamin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy delete. There seems to be some marketing push going on over this word, on different Wikis. Those voting "keep" here are involved in that, and only that., , , , possibly sockpuppets from their behavior. Proof is this Wiktionary exchange, where one tries to change the definition and add to it a link to their website. This sparks administrative response, and the other jumps in to argue the definition right away. This also seems bad for a collection of quotes. Good ones aren't really about the topic, and ones really about the topic aren't good. Suspicious that there are quotes by "Benjamin Sullivan" (no Wikipedia article) and "SullivanBenjamin" comes to defend. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was some disagreement on the Wiktionary page, but the end result was that I fully embraced the definition provided. I also admit that I have not been an active contributor to Wikiquotes, although I would like to be. I'm simply passionate about Panendeism, and among thousands of other people, I do see it as a real thing and would like to see that reflected on Wikiquotes - just as other sub-categories of Deism are. However, I will certainly respect whatever the consensus is on this page. I'm also open to merging it with the Deism page since Panendeism is really nothing more than a focus within the sub-categories of Deism. However, I do want to set one thing straight - the quotes that were included in the final Wiktionary definition are ALL from for profit books that are being marketed. Mostly from fraudulent people who have made-up illustrious academic titles and from sketchy, non existent universities. This was my contention on Wiktionary, not the definition. I would challenge anyone who believes my own work in Panendeism to be "marketing" to find a single trace of for profit anything that I've done with it. I have never made single penny off of Panendeism, nor do I ever want to. All of the articles on our site are released under creative Commons, as are our ebooks, and in future, print formatted books will also be sold at the cost of manufacture without any profit whatsoever. The irony is that I am accused of marketing and marketers are the ones who are cited on Wiktionary.SullivanBenjamin (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's engage here. What was decided on Wiktionary is not relevant to whether this page is kept. Different Wikiprojects, different purposes. Now, "marketing" does not always mean for profit. Sorry if I implied that, but what's going on here is an effort to promote a new idea into a mainstream where it doesn't now exist. "I'm simply passionate about Panendeism" is no help. Merging with Deism is no help either. The quotes don't work. Breaking it down, there are 16 quotes. Ones by Copling, McDermott, and two by you are non-notable. That leaves 12. None of those mention "Deism" or seem very on point with what's unique to it. Maybe Einstein. Some could go to Mind. Some seem indistinguishable from Pantheism. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just removed John Lennon from Pandeism, for the same reasons. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Hyperbolic, your level headed manner of addressing this has resorted my faith in an unbiased process here on Wikiquotes.
 * As far as this page goes, if you tell me what it would need to meet your criteria for inclusion, I will try and assist - assuming there is viable information to validate Panendeism here. If not, I trust your processes and whatever your decision is regarding this page.


 * As a back drop to this discussion, just to lend clarity to it (rather than credence) I spent some time as a Deist, then about a year as a Pantheist before stumbling on the philosophy of Panendeism. I consider myself an agnostic and liked the open aspect of Panendeism. There is a definite overlap between Panendeism, Pantheism, and Panentheism - there's no doubt about that. I still consider myself to be a classic Pantheist, but felt the need to differentiate after a large movement appears to have emerged which Presents the Pantheist/Pandeist God as expressly material, non-volative, and without sentience. As someone who is open to various possibilities, I was put off by that dogma and I started a small group on Facebook. Over the years, I connected with Larry Copling and more recently, Jim Garvin because I really wanted to grasp what their initial ideas and intentions were when they used that term and accurately reflect that.


 * Since starting that group I have have had an overwhelming number of people troll our page and attempt to force their idea of a mindless God as being the only possible conclusion and reality. As we grew, these same people that once trolled our groups decided to grant themselves prance about titles and PHDs from made up schools and then self published books that paint Panendeism as being virtually identical to Pandeism. It's been a long and frustrating journey and throughout it, my intent has always been to keep all possibilities open.


 * It's not that I reject the idea of a mindless Universe as invalid, or consider atheism to be invalid, but I think it's remarkably dishonest to enforce any hard set of conclusions at this phase of human evolution and science, especially through covert means in other people's philosophy and groups. I have never tried to redefine Pandeism, for example, nor have I ever attempted to sway people from their variations of Pantheism or redefine it. The only thing I have ever been adamant about is the idea that life and the universe we live in are inherently meaningful. Beyond that, Panendeism simply uses the concepts of science and deductive reasoning put forth by Deism and embraces any and all potentially valid postulates that fit the "all in God" meaning of the term. So to me, and to the people I've talked to that brought Panendeism to light, there is no solid model for God in Panendeism, it simply looks at the compatible ideas put forth by science and embraces them with a healthy dose of agnosticism.


 * Again, my intent and the intent of my colleagues was not to make Panendeism bigger than life, but to preserve what it was meant to be. I respect the beliefs of others and hope a for the same respect in  a return, but that has not been the case. If your opinion is that these ideas would be best suited to the Pantheism page. I applaud that. In fact, I would love to see these classic kind of Pantheistic ideas there. I think it would be an affirmation that Pantheism still entertains these ideas as potentially valid. Also, I checked out the mind page you cited. I'd be honored to see these quotes there as well. I wasn't previously aware of that page, it's excellent! SullivanBenjamin (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Others here can better speak to this. I think to be kept you'd need quotes by very notable people directly saying "Panendeism is" something. Usually takes a while for that to come of a new idea. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. I will do my best to find notable resources, but as you've said, it's probably unlikely given the few decades the philosophy has existed. I appreciate everyone's time and effort here and would be happy to add these resources under the Mind category, assuming the consensus is to delete this page. I'll also await any further feedback from other members as to what material can be provided (assuming such materials exist) to help substantiate this page here.
 * Moved all unrelated to their authors, some to other topics. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, Cool! I have a lot more quotes, in future I will add them accordingly. After a good deal deal of research, and with respect to Wikiquotes policy, I've decided to change my vote to delete. There simply aren't any very notable sources for Panendeism and I'm certainly not notable. If possible, given the background I've provided, I would like to propose that all entries for Panendeism be purged across all related Wiki sites. There are a number that were cited under this Wikipedia redirect discussion. I agree per nom and Wikiquotes policy, this is a recently made-up word. I also agree with the suggestion that this should also be stripped from the Wikipedia entries God, Theism, Personal god, Glossary of philosophy, Theopanism, De divisione naturae, and God becomes the Universe and would like to propose it be deleted from the Wiktionary entry for Panendeism as well. There is some Pandeist zealotry at work behind this. I don't know if you can blacklist the term accross wiki sites, but I'd support that too. I have literally been messaged on Facebook by these people (can screenshot if you like) with the threat that their lofty self-published books and made up publishing houses, which coincidentally sound like they have ivy league associations (i.e. The Columbia Review) represent the "most complete and scholarly works ever published on Panendeism." I guess they've taken their bogus PhDs to heart and decided that subversion is justifiable. Seriously, I would be forever in your gratitude if you would just put an end to this drama. I still plan to learn and contribute, but I'm more than happy to do so under the appropriate, well established authors and categories.SullivanBenjamin (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith when dealing with your fellow editors. There is no "Pandeist zealotry at work behind this". The editors involved in this discussion are longstanding contributors to this and/or other Wikimedia projects, and have no ulterior motive in enforcing our clearly delineated notability guidelines. If you have evidence of off-Wiki communications specifically relating to this discussion, you can provide this here, but Wikiquote is not a forum for airing conspiracy theories or grievances against other parties, real or imagined. BD2412 T 20:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, precisely per nom. Sock/meatpuppetry closes the case. BD2412 T 04:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum. At this point, content relating to this term has been deleted from Wikipedia, per discussion there. BD2412 T 19:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)