Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process Neo-Paganism

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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Process Neo-Paganism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested (endorsed) PROD. No evidence of reliable source coverage and very little web footprint. Everymorning (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG with only a single self-published, two-paragraph source, and even that doesn't use the phrase, instead talking generally about how process theology can apply to paganism. --McGeddon (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, it does apply to views within neopaganism. It is false to say how it can apply, links were provided to prove it does apply as stated by some famous names by neopagan authorities and authors, books, and the most famous Neopagan website. With so many branches of contemporary Neopaganism, it would be impossible to list them all. Rather than looking for small semantics, we can observe from books etc. that process theology is a system widely observed by many neopagans AS TO HOW THEY BELIEVE THE CREATIVE PROCESS OF THE UNIVERSE OPERATES! THROUGH GRADUAL CHANGE RATHER THAN THOR WHILE MAINTINING pagan reverence for nature.. Since as the link says "recently" come into neopaganism, it is understandable as to why it is scarce amoung Wiki researchers. Being an up to date source of information, it our duty to keep those informed of various and recent beliefs In the Neo-pagan system. Wiki has a a page titled Christian Atheism. Ask yourself, with the sources I provided that proves this is a recent development in Neopaganism, Starhawk, etc., why should some non existant and ludicrous page as Christian atheism be on Wikipedia? As teachers of the modern era coupled with the evidence that this is a recent system that neopagans believe in, it is our duty to be on the cutting edge of information. Respectfully. — Paulcolizzo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulcolizzo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete. Appears to be original research under WP:SYN. While it's clear from looking at some of the cited authors that process philosophy and process theology are being used/discussed in pagan/neo-pagan theological circles, and while that means there is "process paganism," that conclusion is synthesis. ~~Other than that one blog post~~ Other than one docstoc document, I don't see anyone outside of Wikipedia using the term "process paganism" specifically. We need citations of that term in use. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, appears to be valid in Neopagan.Perhaps it deserves a new terminology. From Pagan Theology This is what many belief in Neopaganism as to the nature of god.

Process – process theology

Paradox: God/dess is a verb. That is, God/dess (a subject) is a verb (a predicate). God/dess is the Dancer and the Dance. The fundamental insight of process theology is that reality is change. Change, motion, flux: these are the fundamental realities. Objects, things, moments in time: these are abstractions and unreal. This is true of all reality, including God/dess and ourselves. Quotes: “She changes everything she touches. And everything she touches changes.” — Starhawk (chant) “[T]he shape-shifiting, all-encompassing Goddess is a personification of the unending, unbroken sacred cycle of Birth-Death-Rebirth found throughout the cosmos. Nature is experienced as the Goddess’s ever-changing, cycling, divine Body-Self-Wisdom.” — Donna Wilshire, Virgin Mother Crone “While life is in us, we must live in the world, where the Dance is, and to live truly, we must join the Dance. There is no reason for this. There is no reason for the world, only the rhyme and the rhythm of the days and nights and the four seasons, without us and within. Life is a Dance and the beginning and end of our lives are steps only; the Dance goes on with us and without us. In time and space, we, as all things, arise and dance and in due time slow and cease to be. But the Dance continues. The Dance is; it always is.” — Michael Adam, Wandering in Eden: Three Ways to the East Within Us http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sermonsfromthemound/2013/08/pagan-theology-recommended-resources/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.103.130 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RE: "it is our duty to be on the cutting edge of information" – No, that actually is not part of Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia's duty is to summarize notable information verifiably published by reliable sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I stated in my PROD2 (now removed) and as has been stated here, while it is true that some prominent figures in neo-paganism are bringing elements of process theology into their examination of paganism, it does not appear to be the case that any of these figures (or anyone else, for that matter) has gone so far as to coin a new and widely used term "process neo-paganism". As such, this term appears to be WP:MADEUP and not meriting a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (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.