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. consensus is delete, the weak improvement doesn't seem theseable Nja²⁴⁷ 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article describes a religious viewpoint that does not appear to be noteworthy. Outside of a handful of websites, mostly wiki-type reference websites, Integrational Polytheism seems to have little coverage or recognition on academic, media, or other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaphile (talk • contribs) 2009/09/18 02:50:32

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep But Improve References need work, topic probably notable. Needs eyes, not deletion. Article does need considerable work.Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, therefore notability not established. Would be willing to revisit vote if sources are added. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as neologism, no references, article cant even say who created the term. links are to blogs. redirect to pantheism or polytheism even seems premature, as i dont see any content here that can be added to those articles. basically a brief essay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:12, 29 September 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.