Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian republic


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian republic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although "Christian" and "Republic" are both notable terms, and very important topics, the two of them together do not seem to create a notable topic for a WP article. It is possible to say "Christian republic" (and it is said fairly often) but there does not seem to be any consistent meaning, which is reflected by the state of the article. WP:Neologism and WP:Original research could also be invoked against this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems pure OR, currently fails WP:V, no reliable sources in sight, and not a notable term to begin with. I expect we could find various reliable sources mentioning the term "Christian republic", but unless we have one actually discussing the concept (which I doubt can be found), that doesn't make it worthy of an article. Huon (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a very well rewritten article. Huon (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete . "historical places that might be deemed Christian Republics" - all we need. This is OR. (Also, it provides literally no definition of the term that it's supposedly documenting - it contains both "A Christian Republic is most broadly defined as a republic with a state religion of Christianity" and "A Christian Republic generally does not mean a Republic that merely has a state religion which happens to be Christian.") Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rewrite is a great start. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Original essay on a non-notable topic. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that at the time that you wrote that the article, the question is almost begged: What's "original" and "novel" about 18th century political philosophy? And what's "non-notable" about something that has been noted by four professors and a psychologist?  Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think I created it, but I thought it had some historical interest so worked on it.Google BooksGoogle Scholar--T. Anthony (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears to be chock full of original research. Also, the article is more about why a few particular people think that a Christian reupblic can't exist instead of what a Christian republic actually is. While the topic itself may be notable (let me emphasize the word "may" and the possibility that this subject isn't notable), this article does not prove that it is, and for now it should be deleted. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where "a few particular people" are the likes of Niccolò Machiavelli and Alexis de Tocqueville, and the "may be notable" article is not even based upon Machiavelli and de Tocqueville noting the subject directly, but upon (since it has been expanded since even Carrite looked at it) six professors and a psychologist noting that Machiavelli, de Tocqueville, et al. noted it. Your idea of "original research" is ludicrous, and not in line with our no original research policy's concept. The idea that (mainly) 20th century scholarly analysis of 15th to 18th century thought by several of the most prominent thinkers of classical republicanism is "original research", and a novel hypothesis of any form, is so blatantly wrong that it almost makes one wonder whether you formed the conclusion that this was original research as a sheep vote to follow what was above, and tried to interpret the article to fit the preconceived conclusion. Did you pick up a single one of the sources cited and check it against the article?  If you didn't, you have no basis for even knowing whether this is original research, let alone stating that conclusion in an AFD discussion as if you had checked the content against sources to see whether they advanced the same conclusions.  Try the book by Marcela Cristi, professor at the University of Waterloo, first.  (There's a hint in the edit summaries that it's a good place to start.) Did it not occur to you to wonder why Roscelese's rationale (to pick just one) stated things that simply weren't true about the article that you saw in front of you?  Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You make good points. I will state that I didn't note the notability of the "few particular people" enough, and that the sources that are supplied do not suggest original research. The article has been improved since the Afd was assigned to the topic, since there used to be zero sources but now there are significantly more than that. I do know what original research is, and I'll also admit that I made the vote in haste. Now that I've retracted from my comments above, they don't necessarily represent my thoughts on OR. The comments that I made in support of its deletion can be entirely dismissed, and I will want to remember not to make votes in haste in the future. At this point, I don't think there is a need for this to be deleted. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: noting that the article had more progress in the 6 hours after its AfD than in the 5 years before it. Neither a neologism (discussion on the topic goes back centuries) nor a random juxtaposition of two words (whole books appear to have been written on the subject), but rather (apparently) a frequent philosophers' thought experiment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a superset of this? religion-based republic or something? To cover the Jewish Republic, several Islamic Republics, and these. (is Sri Lanka a Buddhist Republic?) 65.93.14.29 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Republicanism and religion was an article, but has been a redirect for about 20 months. Islamic republic is an article due to it being a term in modern-day nations.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Israel was not intended as a religion-based republic, but as a homeland for the Jewish people, religious or not. Modern Israel that is. If you want to make the claim that the Israelites before King Saul were a religious republic, I guess you could do that reasonably. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hrafn. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn does make a good point. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Please don't count my nomination as a "delete" "vote." The article I nominated is gone and has been replaced by one on a totally different topic. The new topic might indeed be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the same topic to me. It's just content based upon how prominent thinkers and the scholars who've studied them have addressed the topic, which is radically different to how non-experts do, it seems.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So different that it seems to be a new topic, to a non-expert. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge? There's some interesting material here, but perhaps not enough for a stand-alone article. Could it be moved into the Christianity and politics article? Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I see we do have a solid Christian democracy article, so in concept an article on the historical idea of a Christian republic could stand on its own. But it seems to me that the information here might fit better in the Christianity and politics article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- This is an article on an idea devised by two important philosophers - Locke and Rousseau. It has a good list of citations, and is certainly a notable topic.  I have not looked at the article originally nominated.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The idea of the Christian Republic touches on a number of important ideas in the history of European political thought, though the interest there is chiefly historical (I acknowledge that some have been accused of trying to create such a state in the USA more recently).
 * That man is or should be governed by a set of natural or God-given laws
 * Government by a priest class or acknowledged people of faith - a theocracy
 * Within a Christian context, that God's purpose can be directly understood from a proper study of scripture and can be applied to all areas of our lives, and may often tend toward fundamentalism
 * The idea of a state religion or church
 * The ideal of republicanism

The ideal of the Christian republic is a particular sub-set of these. For example, in Europe a state church has often been associated with monarchical government, or at least constitutional monarchy, so is not exclusively republican. And many republican theorists would reject the idea of limiting their republic to a particular faith and might exclude religious 'interference'. The article needs better historical context and reference to theorists or a political movement advocating such a system and an explanation or exposition of their case. John Locke's comments cannot really be understood without knowledge of the Levellers and similar movements around the time of the English Civil War and Commonwealth a generation or so before he was writing. Whether the Levellers were Christian republicans may be a topic for discussion, but the case can be made, and indeed some would have seen the Commonwealth itself in those terms. For these reasons I don't think that the topic can easily be subsumed into another article because of the overlaps, and it certainly qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia in terms of importance. I don't think that the article on modern Christian Democracy will do as a home either, both because it is concerned with the modern political movement and is not necessarily republican, though there should be a cross-reference because there is a continuity of ideas. Yes to emphasising that the idea is more to do with political theory than religion, but then the distinction is precisely one that its advocates were trying to reject. AJHingston (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly enough coverage, and a specific notable concept.    DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 19 January 2011 (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.