Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmotheism

Cosmotheism

Cosmotheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is going to be a bit confusing, and I am not exactly advocating deletion of the title, but the content, so bear with me.

This article has a confused history, and a confused scope, and it seems like no one here has had an idea of what to do with it; this is evidenced by the fact that this article has existed for 21+ years and has 1100+ revisions, but is two paragraphs long, a length at which it has stayed for nearly two decades. For a while it has been trying to be an article for every usage of the word "Cosmotheism".

"Cosmotheism" is a word; it is a word that has meant various things, to various different people, and there does not seem to be one coherent concept of it. The problem, for this page, is that outside of individual writers using it, there does not seem to be any reflection or consensus on a wider "cosmotheism", but it is a word that different people have used for different reasons. Primary among these are Lamoignon de Malesherbes, who used it to basically mean a certain kind of pantheism; as far as I can tell his version is not notable though. There is also Mordechai Nessyahu, who had a whole different kind of Cosmotheism; no clue if it is notable, because the whole article is unsourced.

The only thing at the title of Cosmotheism I am certain is notable is the racist philosophy/religion/maybe tax fraud scheme founded by William Luther Pierce; there are several book chapters, academic articles, and generally significant coverage devoted to Pierce's Cosmotheism. If you search for results on Cosmotheism probably half of it is about Pierce and there is a substantial amount of discourse about the concept. Norman Lowell also did something similar but I am unclear if this is a fourth, unrelated doctrine of Cosmotheism or if he is just ripping off Pierce. He might be ripping off Pierce.

We cannot cobble together an article from a bunch of people talking about different things and using the same word for it by happenstance, because there is no general notable concept of an overarching cosmotheism that includes all these things.

So, if Pierce's is the only notable topic, should "Cosmotheism" simply be an article on Pierce's religion (or simply redirect to his article in the meantime, because there is really no content here; though if that is what we want to do, I could whip up a start class article pretty quickly)? Or, is there another notable Cosmotheism that I am missing, and this should become a dab page, and Pierce's Cosmotheism can be another page? The title should stay as something because it is a utilized and linked to term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Religion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If the Pierce one is the only notable one, then by all means just delete the current content and replace it with a start class article on the notable subject. Until another article about another notable cosmotheism is written, there is no need for a disambiguation page. Katzrockso (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with doing that, but I took it to AfD because of the controversial page history and my questions over if there are other notable cosmotheisms. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Why would the page history need to be deleted? There's no good reason to do so. Katzrockso (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn't? This was mostly in lieu of a merge discussion and we can't do those outside of AfD anymore. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused - what are you proposing to merge here? William Luther Pierce to Cosmotheism? Cosmotheism to Pierce's article? Katzrockso (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The mainspace article cannot stay as this strange amalgamation of a non-notable concept. All else failing yes the suggestion was it be redirected to Pierce's article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why AfD is the right forum to ask if you should edit an article to fix issues with it. There isn't a clearly articulated merge proposal here and you aren't advocating deletion, so I'm not sure what is being asked here. Katzrockso (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

What other forum should I have taken it to? The talk page hasn't had active discussions in decades so it isn't like people are going to chime in, and none of the noticeboards are appropriate. It is an AfD matter because the question is whether this page should continue to exist in this form, I am saying it should not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why that's a AfD matter at all, it's not within the scope of AfD at all. What content the page hosts is not really what AfD deals with, but whether the subject of a page is notable and now whether to merge a page into another. AfD thankfully was not renamed to "articles for discussion" and still does not have that as its purpose.

Boldly make the changes. If you wanted more input, ask a WikiProject or WP:FTN.

Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. Katzrockso (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly within the scope of AfD since the merge, because we are arguing if the page should exist. It shouldn't. The topic is not notable; and yes, it would be preferable that the page be deleted rather than continue existing like this, because it is not notable. Or do you think the concept of "cosmotheism" as a whole is notable? What sources are there for that? I haven't found any, that is what I am asking for.

It is inadvisable to make bold changes against the consensus of the community, especially when I am not sure of the notability of the subject. There is no WikiProject applicable and FTN would just suggest it be deleted, as they do with any of the kinds of thing like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You stated The only thing at the title of Cosmotheism I am certain is notable is the racist philosophy/religion/maybe tax fraud scheme founded by William Luther Pierce; there are several book chapters, academic articles, and generally significant coverage devoted to Pierce's Cosmotheism. This is arguing cosmotheism is notable. Katzrockso (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not arguing Cosmotheism (the word) is notable, it is arguing Cosmotheism (Pierce) is notable. An entirely different topic that this article is not about. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not to rescope an article is a content decision, not something AfD is made for. Deletion is not cleanup. Katzrockso (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is not going to be rescoped as there is no consensus to rescope it (see below argument), so that isn't going to happen. The topic is not notable. Why should we keep an article on a topic with no sources about it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If you had boldly rescoped the article, there would never have been any issue. I support a rescoping but AfD cannot meaningfully generate a consensus on a content issue - AfD closers always punt that to the talk page of the article. Katzrockso (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There would have been, as demonstrated by the objection below and by the article's history of scope changes and disambifications and dedisambifications. I doubt this will go anywhere but I tried something; the status quo will continue, where the article will continue to exist as a two paragraph long stub on a non-notable topic for all time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You could withdraw the AfD nomination, BOLDly rescope the article and proceed to traditional Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if your attempts at rescoping are reverted. How is this any different than literally any other editing on Wikipedia? Katzrockso (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I cannot BOLDly do something that other editors have already voiced their opposition to, that is simply against consensus. What this article is about is non-notable, and the consensus is that it remains on the non-notable topic, so at AfD we are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If you hadn't inappropriately opened this AfD in the first place, you could have boldly rescoped the article and gone through the traditional Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process if someone reverted you. I would suggest closing this AfD and then starting a talk page discussion (perhaps a RfC) over the subject of the article - these are not without precedent. Katzrockso (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I couldn't have, because it would have been objected to, as it has been objected to in the past. There is no one else to have a discussion with here, or any applicable active editing community to notify with an RfC, the consensus (as demonstrated by Hyperbolick) is that this remain some strange half-formed disambiguation of a bunch of non-notable topics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you not believe that any aspect of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process could work here? Relevant WikiProjects include WP:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, Wikipedia:WikiProject Theology, etc. If it was a dispute between two editors, then the WP:Third opinion process would have been relevant. Failing that, a Wikipedia:Request for comment or the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard could have employed. I do not see why you think none of these would be efficacious in resolving a dispute.

A RfC is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All and notifies editors at the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. It would certainly inspire more engagement than a moribund typical talk page discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

With the exception of Wikiproject Philosophy, none of those projects are active at all; there are no discussions on the pages stretching back years, only unresponded to notifications. I think the only active member of Wikiproject Religion and Wikiproject Discrimination is me. This is a very specific and niche topic not at all in the mainstream of philosophy so I don't see why they would have any interest.

The question, ultimately, is whether the overarching concept of cosmotheism is notable. I am saying it is not. Others have argued it is. That is why we are here.

If you want some context, perhaps, on why this article is like this, there was a very long drama involving this article and a follower of Pierce's cosmotheism in the early 2000s, which is perhaps why this page had 1100+ revisions and why the consensus on this article is "nothing must ever get done about it", or we're giving a white supremacist a win from 20 years ago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

For the closer, I also support a regular keep of the article title, with rescoping to the notable subject of the Cosmotheism created by William Luther Pierce. I oppose redirection because the nominator of this AfD stated they would be able to create a start-class version of the article, which would be sufficient for a standalone article. WP:NOMERGE states Merging should be avoided if: ... the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles. Commonly ignored, this clearly indicates that if the topics could be expanded into longer articles, a merge should be avoided. There is no disagreement here that the notable subject of cosmotheism (as created by William Luther Pierce) could be expanded into a longer article, so a merge is unwarranted. Katzrockso (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Please unbold one of your keep !votes. You may only have one bolded !vote per discussion. I'd suggest the speedy keep be struck as CSK#1 does not apply. Although not clearly written as the usual "I propose a merge...", the rationale for merge to the Pierce article is stated in the last paragraph of the nomination. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep in some way. Past versions have been much more extensive, believe they kept getting divided out into other pages. At least disambiguation. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Hyperbolick None of those past revisions had acceptable sourcing. What other pages were they divided into? And what would we disambiguate? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Don’t know, but there’s been edit warring at this title for 20+ years. Dozens of pages mention it, look to them. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Hyperbolick Yeah, that's the problem, it will continue to be edit warring because the topic is not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Hyperbolick would you be opposed to rescoping the article to be about the notable topic identified by PARAKANYAA?

  The only thing at the title of Cosmotheism I am certain is notable is the racist philosophy/religion/maybe tax fraud scheme founded by William Luther Pierce; there are several book chapters, academic articles, and generally significant coverage devoted to Pierce's Cosmotheism.

  Katzrockso (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Would prefer disambiguation unless there is truly nothing else applicable. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  But only one of these things is notable! We cannot disambiguate between a bunch of non-notable topics that aren't addressed on the pages, if this becomes a disamb it would be deleted for violating our policies on disambs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Disambiguation articles only include links to actually extant articles or sections within articles. See e.g. WP:DABRELATED

  @Hyperbolick Katzrockso (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Every single use of this in every article is about the same version? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  No? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Panentheism#People associated with panentheism names four people associated with Cosmotheism or calling themselves Cosmotheist apparently unassociated with the other version. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  I thought you were saying the exact opposite. And yes, that is my point, none of this is notable or cited anywhere. That entire section is uncited and should be removed, none of these things are notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Names on the list are linked to articles where the concept is cited. Mordechai Nessyahu and Jan Assmann, eg. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  It is not cited in the first article and in the second one it is him discussing someone else's theory. So, still no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Absolutely is cited in the first article, look at the cites. Doesn’t matter if somebody is discussing somebody else’s theory in the second, they’re discussing a theory of the name. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  That is a self-published paper that mentions the subject once in passing, saying absolutely nothing about it; not enough for even inclusion as the source is not reliable, and especially not a disamb.

  No, that is not how disambiguations work, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. We do not have directory style lists for every time a term is mentioned in passing in an article. There are not multiple notable topics here so a disambiguation would be deleted for violating our policies on disambiguation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Too much moving goalposts now. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  You never addressed "disamb articles only include links to actually extant articles or sections within articles". Which is the case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Which means link the article discussing it or the section discussing it, which can be done for any of these. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Except there aren't articles discussing this topic or sections discussing it, because none of the uses of the term are notable or currently covered on Wikipedia. We don't pre-disambiguate non-notable topics. Katzrockso (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Unconvinced. Looks to me like there are. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, there are not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to William Luther Pierce, where, in fact, the subject is mentioned and may contain as much as can be said from this sparse page content. If what is in that article were expanded, because more could be said about their cosmotheist church, then it ie easily spun out over the redirect, but currently a reader is better served by a redirect to the page where the information is provided in context. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to William Luther Pierce as the article seems useless in current form, and placement of the material there would give it context (agreeing with Sirfurboy here). If enough sources emerge to write about one of the others, a new article can be created. The current state reminds me of the groups in taxonomy which only exist as a place to put stuff we can't classify. Taxonomists are trying not to do that anymore because it's actively unhelpful. M kuhner (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

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.