Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theopathy

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. Several of the Delete views focus on the AI source of the content, rather than on the notability of the subject. Content can be fixed editorially if the subject meets our notability guidelines. Those calling for "delete and redirect" did not explain what is the offending content that requires purging the page's history rather than merely BLARing.

Most troublingly, two weeks after an almost complete rewrite of the article, none of the participants came back to comment. This wouldn't be an issue if the basis for the call for deletion was subject notability. But when the call to delete is based on the content, a fresh content requires a fresh !vote. I see no point in relisting this under such circumstances, but any editor is welcome to renominate this in one month, if still applicable. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theopathy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This was translated from the German-language Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the German-language article was generated by AI and reportedly contains significant hallucinations. While I think this could be a notable topic (though I'm doubtful about this), I'm sorry to say that this version may require WP:TNT. In particular, I believe that "identifies with God" is unverifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: I think that the most appropriate outcome for this is to delete and redirect to David Hartley (philosopher). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not Redirect I'm a native german speaker, and i've reviewed the linked discussion on de.wiki about this article's source. Broadly looks like either hallucinated AI slop or unsourced rambling. Either way I don't see any value in this article and given that none of the purported sourcing even seems to mention the term theopathy, I believe redirecting is equally inappropriate. Magisch ^{talk to me} 10:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hartley/ mentions theopathy 13 times (e.g., "Hartley offers an original model of psychological development. The various emotional states (“pleasures and pains”) we experience structure themselves into “six classes”: imagination, ambition, self-interest, sympathy, theopathy, and the moral sense.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other Generative AI creations. We are cheddar-makers, not vendors of Cheez-Whiz™... Carrite (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Im happy to take a hammer to anything AI, but is there any sourcing on this before we discard it. All I saw in a cursory search is dictionary definition. Or is there something it could be merged into?Metallurgist (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on David Hartley (philosopher), which describes this concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to David Hartley (philosopher). The word is rare so a redirect won't get in the way of anything. A good source is this book. Zero^talk 04:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, discuss and improve: I have checked the article for IA contamination: As far as I see, there are neither hallucinations nor wrong/nonexistent sources. Please refer to the article when claiming AI use. The article is still kind of a stub, but can improved upon. Discussion about content improvement can be continued on the discussion page. As the main author so far, I take responsibility for any deficiencies and am ready to do the main work of correction and improvement. I find the concept important for the mentioned authors, and central to Hartley. There are better sources and more material to be found. Thanks for the valuable information here.Gabel1960 (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabel1960, in response to WhatamIdoing's specific concern In particular, I believe that "identifies with God" is unverifiable, which part of which source backs that statement up? Generally, if you know that there are better sources and more material to be found, you would be better off including them in the article first off! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already revised the article. Please check. As for the "identifies with god" statement, which is not AI but corresponds to my own understanding of the texts found in the internet, I will either delete or modify it, with reference to a page. It is possible that the identification (or unio mysitica, or annihilation of the self) is more Coleridge's understanding of Hartley than Hartley's own. I will check this today. Gabel1960 (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabel1960, can you expand on why you have chosen to put some items in Bibliography and some items in References?That is, why not all in References as inline citations? I am trying to figure out whether the bibliography supports statements in the article, or is better viewed as a Further reading section. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunloungerFrog I willl put all references in bibliography, and add other titles under "further reading".

Keep per WP:HEY. Normally I would agree to delete AI, however in this case an editor has taken the time to research sources and make a human article. It went from 1,500 bytes to over 8,000 with more being added, all by a human. Special:Diff/1298520582/1298812460 AI is no longer a factor. -- GreenC 21:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do others think about the recent article overhauls?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 21:17, 18 July 2025 (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.