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 No Consensus. After four weeks of discussion, this doesn't appear to be approaching a consensus. Arguments are split between keeping and redirecting. Further discussion on the article's talk page would be appropriate to determine whether this subject is sufficiently distinct from dystheism, which rightly or wrongly is currently redirected to Misotheism, or whether it could be merged there, which even taking into account the 'keep' arguments that this a real thing and a widely used term, may still be appropriate. Michig (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Based on blogs, without any good sources. Previous discussion resulted in redirection to Dystheism. Bulwersator (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a real thing... ISBN 184799640X page 205 is a basic definition (almost identical to the opening btw... I wonder if any of this article is copied from other sources). There are plenty of other book hits too. The sourcing right now is bad... I don't see why someone didn't bother to put in a book source or two. Shadowjams (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Hoa binch (comment on plwiki AfD) there are things on google books - based on enwiki articles Bulwersator (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only six results from Google Books, among them is a novel, a book about roleplaying games, a sef-published book on Lulu.com, and aforementioned book by Bernard Schweizer. --Teukros (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: No one is alleging it doesn't exist, but the fact that something exists isn't on its own enough to merit it an article. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This term is widely used by reliable sources (contingent upon any copyright concerns being properly addressed.) Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect again to dystheism. I could not find significant discussion of this term in Google Books, News, or Scholar. That's why book sources haven't been entered. The book Shadowjams points to is self-published on Lulu.com, and thus not a reliable source. Before anyone makes an argument again to keep based on hits, please critically assess the sources and the coverage they give to this term. Bernard Schweizer talks in passing about Wikipedia's own battles over this terminology, noting that maltheism has lost out as a term.[1] Fences&Windows 03:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important and highly relevant idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.207.124.49 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the previous target. The term is not notable, at least not yet. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 January 2012 (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.