Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Now theology


 * 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. The keep !votes mostly come down to "it exists" or "there are sources", while the delete !votes clearly establish the lack of verifiability and notability of the term. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Now theology
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod declined. As demonstrated by research on the talk page, this term has been applied to multiple, contradictory theologies by reliable sources. Because I see no effective way to repair this, and since it has been the subject of an attempted WP:COATRACKing of Sarah Palin I propose this be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. It's a notable fringe belief. The article was created 14 September 2004 and Sarah Palin became governor in November 2006. Thus, any mention of Palin is not related to creation of the article. Deleting does not equate to fixing. We66er (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point. People attempting to coatrack on to it brought it to WP:AN attention, which is where I first noticed it. Several of us have been striving to improve it: put a good article together, and there's no room for coatracks.  However, in the process of trying to clean up a pretty marginal article (see diffs in nom) it became clear that there is no good definition of this term--multiple reliable sources use it in multiple, contradictory ways. The inability to improve the article from its current sad state is the impetus for this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding: the Southern Poverty Law Center source you cite deals exclusively with "Joel's Army", and I could not find any mention in the source of "Kingdom Now theology" with both a read-through and Ctrl-F. Maybe there's enough for a short article specifically dealing with "Joel's Army", but the SPLC source doesn't say anything about "Kingdom Now theology". MastCell Talk 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The most a reliably sourced article could say is "X is a pejorative term used by various people to label different things that they disagree with. Nobody uses it to describe their own theology.  One use is A, one use is B, one use is C, ..." filled in with the various examples I found on the talk page.  The problem here is not a lack of use of the term, it is a lack of meaning of the term.  This article fails to meet the Avoid neologisms guideline, and I believe it cannot meet that guideline due to the lack of useful sources.  And the article may have been created in 2004, but it has never been sourced, and it was first marked as needing sourcing back in 2006.  With over two years to find sourcing for it; we have as a community failed.  GRBerry 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Given improvements in sourcing.  K u k i ni  háblame aquí 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What improvements? It's been a single source article for some time now. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If by "some time" you mean a weak ago when I added it, then yeah. We66er (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Translation: "Some time" means "It had that source when I started looking at the article" :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (EC) Our failure does not make this term not notable, or the topic unencyclopedic. I agree that it is often used in a perjorative sense, but if reliable sources use the term, and provide enough to write an article, it is appropriate for us to keep it. Stephen J. Hunt has more or less made a career on observing these type of movements, he wrote a book referencing it here. Another scholarly treatment is here, and another here. All three of these books appear to me to be independently published works likely to qualify as reliable sources. The difficulty in writing articles of this nature is that most of the scholarly material online will be JSTOR-type articles that are harder to access, while there are many privately maintained websites that only deal with the material from a POV doctrinal perspective. These often make it into the article, and skew its balance. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So what article should we write, given that RS's conflict about what is meant by the term? I'm serious--if I knew, GRBerry and I would be writing it, rather than here. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete -- I'm unsure if this movement/concept is notable; do these sources confer notability? However it has some reliable sources. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep --It is not argued that the subject is a neologism or a small minority view. Accordingly the term exists and WP should have an article to explain what it means.  If there are contradictions in its usage by different theologians, this should be explained in the article, also if it is a term of abuse against its exponents (like puritan).  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The sources cited point in different directions, suggesting this is a poorly defined term. We have a similar problem at, for instance, metabolic therapy - it means different things to different sources, and it makes it nearly impossible to write a good encyclopedia article. I would consider an article specifically dealing with "Joel's Army", on the basis of the SPLC coverage, but I don't see the source drawing a link between Joel's Army and "Kingdom Now theology" (am I missing something?) Articles can always be de-coatracked, but the bigger concern here is that there's not enough to go on to write an adequately-sourced, encyclopedic article. MastCell Talk 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a link, but the only evidence I found for it was in an unreliable (vanity press) source. It is that both phrases are, if that unreliable source is right, associated with the Latter Rain Movement.  In that affiliation, if accurate, the more common terms would be Dominionist (for this phrase) and Manifest Sons of God (for the Joel's army phrasing).  So there may indeed be reliable sourcing out there from the 1950s on, but I can't find it.  GRBerry 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable neologism, fails per WP:NEO. Do not see multiple reliable sources primarily about the term. - Merzbow (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N pretty badly.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:41, 11 September 2008 (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.