Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianism


 * 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. Note that this does not at all preclude merging and/or redirecting this to an existing article, it's just that there is not a general consensus for doing that, and certainly no consensus for a specific merge/redirect target. Discussion about that possibility could continue on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Christianism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced. Neoligism. Not notable. Fake. Fauna Gland Rocker (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Plenty of google news hits, mostly seem to be from Atlantic Online Polarpanda (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew Sullivan says this a lot, any hits from the Atlantic are probably him.Prezbo (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor: "Onward, Christianist Soldiers?" http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0520/p18s04-hfes.html
 * Keep

Time Magazine: "My problem with Christianism" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826-2,00.html

What this Wikipedia article needs is not deletion, but rather someone who can summarize, among other things, the history of the term, what Christianism is, and (like the term Dominionism) how it is differentiated from the term "Christian fundamentalist" in an encyclopedic way. There have been many edits to the article over the past and it was once more substantial than it is now. Unlike the term "Christian fundamentalism", the intention behind its use has been to highlight a direct parallel between militant Christians and Islamism/militant Muslims, and it's therefore a contentious issue and controversial term. The article as it exists now is not NPOV, BTW.Adrigon (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge and redirect to Andrew Sullivan. Should not be a stand alone article until there are multiple reputable independent secondary sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Is Andrew Sullivan coextensive with (one-and-the-same-as) the Christian Science Monitor and Time Magazine? Did he even write the articles for those publications? I say "Keep"; heck, there's a whole Wikipedia series or portal on "Islamism", so why not on Christianism? Just because the term is used less in the US than Islamism or might be misunderstood (and because of mental blocks, taken offense to) by many is no reason to delete or merge it out of Wikipedia. Let's not shy away from controversy or kow-tow to sectarian/partisan sensitivities just to avoid deletion wars. Shanoman (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Time article is in fact by Sullivan.Prezbo (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dominionism Keep. This diff of mine shows that at one time this material was inside the Dominionism page, but it looks like the purists have purged that material and those sources. The useful Safire aside, the links I added to the dominionism page in that diff show that another liberal blogger, Tristero (long associated with Digby) wrote a column on June 1, 2003 laying out an extensive case for calling certain religious people "Christianist." A week later, June 8, another popular progressive blogger, David Neiwert, made the case for Tristero's assertion. BusterD (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing to merge, but since none of the citations in that diff mention Dominionism I don't think it makes sense to talk about Christianism in that article. It seems like that would mean Wikipedia making a connection that isn't found in the sources.  Christian right or Andrew Sullivan would probably be better merge targets.Prezbo (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, there's already a section inside the Dominionism pagespace, so saying we shouldn't discuss it seems disingenuous. Since I've demonstrated through citation bloggers Tristero and Sullivan "coined" the word on the same day, June 1, 2003, Andrew Sullivan is a decidedly unsatisfactory merge target. One of the reasons I originally posted the links to neiwert and tristero was that the Christianism section of the Dominionism page seemed to indicate, like the sources on this pagespace, that Sullivan was the initiator of the meme. That's not proven by the collected sources. If a satisfactory merge target can't be found, I'd be inclined to keep. I'm adding the sources directly to the page, just in case. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2010 (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.