Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism


 * 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. Keilana talk(recall) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

unsourced list of people; removal of unsourced material results in NPOV violation Will (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is untimely. The sources are being upgraded per talk on the discussion list. --Lquilter (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it. For most of the people and organizations listed, there aren't even any sources saying that they are Dominionist. Roger (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger Schlafly, I suggest you look at the talk page. --Lquilter (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention WP:COI since his mother's group the Eagle Forum is widely seen as dominionist. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to be broad speculation with few WP:RS and a lot of WP:OR. Orderinchaos 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Orderinchaos, I suggest you look at the talk page. --Lquilter (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did so. The problem is this "Dominionism" thing - it's not a word too many use or is used to describe too many people. Perhaps opting for something requiring no original research but along the same lines would be the way to do this within WP:5. Orderinchaos 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Not too many", maybe, but some people do use this, and in verifiable, non-OR ways. Contrary to the nominator's assertion there have been and are plenty of cites in the various sections. --Lquilter (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The illogic of this move is, to me, like someone stating that Lavern and Shirley was high art.  That Roger supported the deletion gives even more reason to not delete the list -- he has his own personal playground at Conservapedia, the place where no truth is too big to ignore and fantasies, myths and revisionist history are the apex of human existence.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an encyclopedic list on an encyclopedic topic. Nowhere else on the project is all this information collected in one place. Like all Wikipedia articles it's a work in progess, and progress is being made. And there is no shortage of sources there and available. Also, this list was suggested by the community as a compromise in the TFD for the now largely purged Dominionism Template and received strong support, see Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_27. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a useful list for determining who is associated with Dominionism.  Besides, as FM states, this is the compromise article.  Time to move on.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above--Filll (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The list is not unsourced; the material is notable. The subject is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Keep.  Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not unsourced? The whole first section of people is unsourced. Will (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean the section about the leaders of the Christian Reconstructionist movement? That's utterly uncontroversial.  Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there are active users verifying sources. Meets WP:N. Editors must be careful about violating WP:POV but it seems there are enough patrolling editors to keep it clean.  Gtstricky Talk or C 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This sort of wanton synthesis in an effort to categorize living persons is specifically outlawed by BLP. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wanton synthesis"? Never thought I see those words strung together. But, in any case, SYNTH would be "outlawed" (not that anything here is "outlawed") by NOR.  That is, were there any synthesis taking place.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an excellent band name. --Lquilter (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that a Nick Rhodes side project? Or was it Yoko Ono? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At any rate, this is no more synthesis than any other list. --Lquilter (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep : there is sufficient notability per WP:N and verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep : Theocratic domination advocates have opened the door to questions of their mortal status. Anon166 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep : I would say delete it, except that this list would undoubtedly resurface in another form, and this is the best version of it we are likely to get. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per FeloniousMonk and Frjohnwhiteford. (How often does one get to say that!!)  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep : "Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?" "I think so, Brain, but next time you wear the rubber pants." Knowing who's trying to take over the world isn't just informative, it has endless entertainment value. =) With any luck, Steve Jackson will include them all in his next edition of Illuminati. And a hearty "Amen" to Frjohnwhiteford. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The bare topic is notable; the list is being defined in a clear way that properly describes the relationship of people & organizations with a movement/tendency; and there have been plenty of sources provided, and those sources that were criticized are being upgraded. --Lquilter (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an encyclopaedic topic for a list, and a fairly well sourced one; and I see the sourcing is still being improved. 'Dominionism' isn't a necessarily derogatory term, so I don't see any real problems here. Terraxos (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2007 (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.