Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unholy Alliance


 * 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. Ezeu 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete An unholy alliance of unreliable sources, original sinthesis [sic], and unsubstantiated attack claims. More suited for someones blog, not wikipedia Avi 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC) SAVE THIS ARTICLE The two voters above clearly identify themselves by their religious affiliations. I prefer to keep that part of my life private. If it disturbs them to see such ideas in print, let them refute them, point by point; otherwise keep still and reflect upon them. I have lived nearly all my life in Kentucky and North Carolina and know the Unholy Alliance for what it is, a fixture of American life. It was a common topic of discussion for as long as I can remember. The political abuse of well-intended religious impulses is something that must be reported and brought to light, not hidden. Intellectual cowardice has no place in Wikipedia. Several vague allegations have been made. Be specific or be quiet. For shame... --Mbhiii 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as pure POV and Original research. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 18:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - please comment on the article content and not on the editors. While the Unholy Alliance you mention may or may not be true, what you may know from personal experience constitutes Original Research.  To include it in an article you must have verifiable, reliable sources per WP:ATT. Blueboar 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Religion has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia core policies of WP:ATT, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, do. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox; please review wiki policies and guidelines, and edit accordingly. Thank you. -- Avi 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It does have something to do with it, if it keeps you from looking at facts. You cannot simply list policies without relating them to the article and call that an argument against it. A SOAPBOX is defined at that site as one of these: 1. Propaganda or advocacy... 2. Self-promotion. or 3. Advertising. none of which are present in the article.
 * Comment My personal religious belief had nothing to do with my decision, I am offended that you would even think that. I am assuming you made these comments because Avi and I have religious themed userboxes on our userpage. As for "Intellectual cowardice," I would suggest that you avoid personal attacks as they will only help to discredit you and influence other editors to vote to delete. Please remain civil. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A judge who mistakenly did not recuse himself from hearing a case involving his religion might say the same thing, and it's entirely civil to point that out to you. --Mbhiii 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The POV, non-reliable sources, and Original Research is just the tip of the iceberg.... without that material it is little more than a Dictionary Definition re: WP:NOT. I could see an article on this, but it would require a LOT of clean up.  Better to delete and start from scratch. Blueboar 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing non-reliable about using Google searches to establish that a term has wide use, but my main intent is to use them as temporary hooks for better citations later, which seems acceptable to others (read discussion). Still, if all one wants to do is establish wide use of a term, Google searches would suffice as permanent citations, but for that purpose alone. I'd accept a radical rewrite to conform to Wikipedia standards that does not delete previous versions. Wanna do it? But let's go point by point on what to add back. --Mbhiii 14:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Blueboar. Acdixon 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - personal religious motivation, especially when identified as such, is germane to the discussion. The article is not written as personal experience, but tied to outside, verifiable, and reliable sources, the sum total of which establish Unholy Alliance to be a real phenomenon. Its qualities, character, and instances remain to be detailed, in progress, just as are some of the scandals it names. (The preceeding was added by user:Mbhiii please sign your comments.)


 * SAVE Google sources are the start of sourcing, a work in progress. Something you've never heard of does not constitute Original Research by the writer. (The preceeding was added by user:Mbhiii please sign your comments.)
 * Strong Delete this inflammatory piece of WP:OR. Arkyan 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your gut reactions have no place here. A collection of facts pointing to a new idea can be inflammatory alone, but does not constitute OR. Inflammation of the imagination can be painful, but some wisdom and moderation helps deal with it. --Mbhiii 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where you are coming up with the "gut reaction" thing
 * your "piece of ..." comment
 * but ad-hominem attacks against people arguing to delete the article are not going to curry you any favor or do anything to advance your cause.
 * When people identify themselves as editors, and religious, they are open to question as to their motivation when editing or deleting an article on religion, i.e. are they trying to advance their own?
 * A collection of facts pointing to a new idea is, in fact, OR - read WP:SYN for clarification.
 * Yes, of course if the meaning is a "totally new idea," but it isn't. "Unholy Alliance" been around for a long time, as a general, vague epithet, and, as a very specific, and generally regretted, lack of separation, in the South, of politics and religion.
 * Not one of the references listed in the article supports the notion of the "unholy alliance" as a concept.
 * Frankly, I wonder if you read any of it at all. All three articles mentioning Baptists and Bootleggers in the title do offer support. At least one article has the very concept named in the title! Would the writer use it in his title if the concept had no immediately identifiable meaning?
 * Google results cannot be used as references,
 * That's a matter of opinion (if you read the discussion).
 * and culling references where the term is used does not constitute reference material, either.
 * I'd agree, but it's a good starting point for documenting something that seems to exist, heretofore, largely in folk-lore, until recently.
 * Add some verified, reliable sources documenting the subject of the article and the OR concerns may be alleviated.
 * I'm willing to do that, but Jeez-Louise, if you read the discussion you'll know I'm a strapped single-parent, and on top of everything it's tax time.
 * Spamming an article with Google results and unrelated sources DOES NOT satisfy WP:ATT.
 * I'm not trying to spam anything, but provide hooks for myself and others to investigate further.
 * Furthermore the unsubstantiated allegations of the Catholic Church colluding with the Nazis comes across as rather inflammatory and the article could be interpreted as a thinly veiled attack page and qualify for speedy deletion.
 * Do I have to document that, too? It's been on PBS and the History channel for decades it seems, and it qualifies as an example of an Unholy Alliance. Read up on Pope Pius XII and the operation to spirit Nazis out of Europe at the end of WWII to South America.
 * I suggest, if you feel this article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, that you clean it up, source it, and refrain from making baseless jabs at the nominator and other participants in the discussion. Arkyan 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Willing to keep trying and responding to criticism, so long as it is very specific, not general or vague as is much of what's on this page. Look, any editor who identifies their religious preferences must expect their motivations to be questioned when editing a religious article. I'd propose such people be required to recuse themselves, like judges, as a matter of Wikipedia policy.--Mbhiii 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor's religious views do not constitute a conflict of interest as they are citing valid Wikipedia policies that have nothing to do with religion.
 * You don't seem to understand the analogy of a judge. It doesn't matter that the laws (policies) have nothing to do with religion. If he's hearing a case that involves his religion, he must recuse himself.
 * The motivation of the contributors to a debate is not relevant to the veracity of their observations.
 * It most certainly is, because of the iceberg theory of mind, only 15% is above water (conscious).
 * Trying to discredit them due to what you feel to be a conflict of interest is still an ad hominem attack and disruptive to the flow of discussion on the merits of the article.
 * It is not in the least, rather it is a concern that should be common to us all, and please note this discussion is flowing with civility.
 * Please refrain from trying to discredit others and focus on telling us why the article should be kept.
 * It is no discredit to address that which we cannot help (the 85% below water) but to ignore it is stupid. The article has merit, and I'm willing to work getting it up to standards. 'Nuff said.
 * As far as your sources in the article are concerned, yes I have looked at them insofar as I am able to. Whether the writer of an article would use the term unholy alliance or not has no bearing on the discussion of the concept.
 * ...a simply amazing statement, in light of questions as to whether the term refers to anything real at all. Given that it does, then your criticism has value, but also if it does (refer to something real), don't delete the article.
 * The article establishes an unsourced dictionary definition of what unholy alliance means and then dives in to a lengthy recounting of examples of what one might percieve as such.
 * Yup, and consider just how many Wikipedia articles do exactly that.
 * Let me reiterate : it does not matter if you can come up with a million articles where someone uses the term.
 * I'd say that'd pretty well establish it as a term of use; wouldn't you?
 * Unless the term istelf is the subject of the source, then the source does not help with attribution.
 * Point taken that assertions about the term need to be documented (if not blatantly obvious).
 * Finally, yes, you must be prepared to cite sourced for information you put in an article. You cannot expect readers to do your homework for you and simply "figure it out".
 * Certainly not for the long-run, I agree.
 * You cannot expect future editors or the AfD participants to sift through Google results and find something to defend your point of view. I am sorry you are a strapped, single parent with little time but that still does not put the burden of proving your point on anyone else.  Spin the issue all you like, but unless the article is properly sourced and cleaned up, it fails Wikipedia policies. Arkyan 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good answer; lemme chew on that. Though it does seem to have worked to some degree, attracting other contributors and editors. I'm willing to cut back to what can be established or proven about the concept, and let others add what they will as time goes on and new sources come to light. --Mbhiii 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The judge analogy does not apply - we are not judges. We are not a jury.  This is not a vote.  We are expressing ideas for consideration by the closing administrator.  It is an attempt to establish consensus.  In any case let me break this down into simple terms - the bulk of your article is not about Unholy Alliance as a topic, but is being used as a medium to exposit what by your definition are unholy alliances.
 * There are a very great number of articles here, megalomania for instance, that are exactly in that format. Examples serve to flesh out and make real what would otherwise be pretty dry stuff. Please, add your own examples, if you know of any.
 * The entire section of the article about the term unholy alliance is unsourced and unreferenced and that is the problem.
 * I concentrated on trying to answer the original objector (see discussion) who is a Baptist and concerned about the prominence of Baptists in the article. Having done that, I'm ready to address yours, if you don't kill it first.
 * That your Google searches and links establish the existence of the term is not in question, but establishing that something exists is NOT the point of sourcing.
 * Now, that you admit Unholy Alliances exist, don't delete the article on it, but edit and enhance it.
 * I am not going to debate this issue with you any further in the interest of not disrupting the debate overall, particularly since it seems you are more concerned with the religious affiliations of the people who have debated here rather than the substance of the article and its fitness in terms of Wikipedia guidelines.
 * It's not their religious affiliations that bothers me, but that they would advertise them as part of their association with Wikipedia, then dare call for the deletion of an article that addresses an abuse of religion, one that results from a lack of religious oversight.
 * Good luck to you sir. Arkyan 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, BTY. --MBHiii 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Google searches are not appropriate references, the bolding in the quotes is meant to prove a point without giving a context (as is the rest of the article, really); there's far too much OR (Pulp Fiction next to the Koran?), and there's really no way to do anything with this, since there's nothing to work with. I'm sure Wiktionary already has a perfectly usable dicdef for this. MSJapan 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Google searches are a good start for a work in progress. The quote bolding was something another person used in the TR quote which seemed to help establish Unholy Alliance as a general concept (Pulp Fiction, Deuteronomy, Koran, etc. all spiritally inspired calls to violence can be used by thugs). I realize now the two should've been separated. Unholy Alliance, in general, and then again, specific to Southern US politics and religion. That one could be split as well into pre- and post-Nixon. BTW, Wiktionary has nothing. --Mbhiii 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Blatantly POV and blatantly original research. Even the arguments defending it here don't defend it as much as they attack those voting for deletion. Mwelch 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's wrong; it's the vague and unsubstantiated argumentation to which I object. --Mbhiii 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and go to RfC The article is biased, but that is fixable.  While you are busy trying to make it neutral, you will probably end up making it well-verified in the process.  See WP:NPOV.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What's RfC? Someone also wants to delete Southern mafia to which I link, but that's also in progress. BTW, my comments about my personal experiences living in states with Unholy Alliances are just that and not to be included in a proper article. --Mbhiii 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Article Requests for Comment is a stage of the dispute resolution process. It will bring the article to the attention to the Wikipedia community.  If the cause of the bias is that all or most interested editors tend to share a particular point of view, this will help by bringing in editors with other points of view, who will then have to compromise to find something the can all agree on (or almost all agree on), which would probably be much more neutral.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this; could you start the template? My concern is that there is entirely too much interest in deleting this article from people who advertise their own religion. A wider readership would be welcome. --Mbhiii 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * RfC should not be started during an AfD debate. If this is closed as keep (which seems unlikely), leave me a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to start and RfC for you.
 * For some quick ideas on how to make the article more neutral, try attributing statements like "Such-and-such was an unholy alliance" to a source, saying "So-and-so said such-and-such was an unholy alliance" instead. You will, of course, need to find a source in order to do this.  The better a source you find, the less likely you will have undue weight problems.
 * After that, you will want to tell the other side of the story: rebuttals and whatnot. Per WP:NPOV, you should discuss all major viewpoints.  You could look at related articles for ideas.  For example, Pope Pius XII details the controversy of the Catholic church's actions during World War II: the good and the bad.
 * Try to provide reasons for both sides, per WP:NPOV.
 * Ideally, the article as a whole should not be particularly offensive to anyone, per WP:NPOV.
 * — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Tons of POV and OR. The Google searches used as "citations" are ridiculous. A basic, slimmed down definition of the term could have a place on Wiktionary, though. – &#160;Þ&#160;  02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ridiculous about using Google searches to establish that a term has wide use, but my main intent is to use them as temporary hooks for better citations later, which seems acceptable to others (read discussion). Still, if all one wants to do is establish wide use of a term, Google searches would suffice as permanent citations, but for that purpose alone.--Mbhiii 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Google Search is a clear-cut example of original research. Advancing the notion that the Google Search proves the term is popular or indeed that the popularity is significant is your original contribution to the topic. It is not something any reliable source has said or supports. If you intend to use these searches as basis for continuing work on the article, you should place them on the talk page and label them as such. If others have told you they are acceptable, they are mistaken. I advise you and them to review Wikipedia's policy on original research. – &#160;Þ&#160;  11:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete In order resolve the WP:OR issue, the article needs to identify sources which address the issue of "unholy alliance" as a general concept in the manner that the article does, rather than generating a concept by stringing together quotes calling this or that thing an "unholy alliance" in the course of an article on something else. It is the generality with which the concept is presented, combined with what seems to be a lack of sources on this subject as such, that represents the WP:OR problem. Imagine an article on "lunatic" which strung together a series of articles in which certain people were called lunatics and then using them to present a concept using language such as "A lunatic can be a kind of politician, such as [insert name of politician here] [cite article cslling this politician a lunatic here]." This article has similar problems with stringing together articles in which the term is used as an epithet in order to present what is essentially an WP:OR essay on a concept. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I agree it'd be nice to have more references, and I'm confident that more will be forth-coming, with time, but this looks like piling-on, to me, by the religiously affiliated. A better example than yours (lunatic) is megalomania - no references, just a simple definition and examples from books, movies, even people (Hitler). Megalomania and unholy alliance can be humorous and pergorative and their articles both need work, but unlike lunatic, they can also be serious descriptive terms that become more easily understood with examples. --Mbhiii 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shirahadasha, and it's not just the matter of a few more references. WP:SYNT requires that the cited sources explicitly identify the unions as "unholy alliances". Since this is a controversial matter strong attribution language is required as well. --Merzul 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Allen Dwight Callahan clearly refers to the "POLITICS OF RADICAL RELIGION, OIL, AND BORROWED MONEY IN THE 21st CENTURY" as an "Unholy Alliance." David Horowitz clearly uses that term to to refer to a linkup of "Radical Islam and American Leftists." --74.227.121.222 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No vote -- however I respectfully request the closing admin to note how many of the above delete votes come from people who, self-evidently, are either fundamentally anatgonistic to the originating editor, or are themselves members of one of the alliances described in the article, and offer OR arguments to support their PoV -- Simon Cursitor
 * Comment - it is a fairly outrageous claim that you are making here in insinuating that the contributing editors to this discussion are fundamentally antagonistic toward the article's originator, and saying so is a POV attack. As far as trying to discredit them by claiming they have some kind of connection to the so-called unholy alliances is pretty pointless.  Either their complaints about WP:OR issues are valid or not and have absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs of those expressing their opinions! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Arkyan, you must slow down and contemplate the iceberg analogy (see above); it applies to us all. --MBHiii 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care how many analogies, theories, metaphors or comparisons anyone throws at the issue. The black and white truth of the matter is that two possibilities exist - either the article passes or fails inclusion criteria.  It wouldn't make a difference if the !voters were self-proclaimed fanatic members of any of the groups the article mentions.  The motivations, affiliations, beliefs or attitudes of the people do not somehow exempt the article from having to meet the basic guidelines for inclusion!  Since this is not a vote the closing admin does not count how many people say delete versus how many say keep.  The admin will weigh the evidence presented both in favor of and opposing the deletion, measure the quality of the article against the standards, determine what the consensus of the Wikipedia community is on the issue and then close the discussion appropriately.  If as you believe those !voting delete have no bias in policy then you have nothing to fear because the closing admin will take this into account.  If however the concerns brought up by these !votes are valid policy related issues then it does not matter their motivation - either the article must be fixed to meet standards or it gets deleted.  Bottom line : this is an "Articles for Deletion" debate, not an "Editors for Scrutiny" discussion.  Stick to the topic of the merits of the article. Arkyan 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which -- with the deepest respect, is the argument that I was making :: asking the closing admin to take note of which "contributing editors" (your words not mine) were voting on the merits and which either on pre-existing agendas, or on the basis of antagonism (let us let fundamental slide, for now) to the originating editors, merits notwithstanding. And, I repeat,  no vote. -- Simon Cursitor


 * Delete. Far too much synthesis / original research / unreliable sources for a Wikipedia article. The references cited don't even support the statements made. It would be OK as a short Wiktionary definition, but as an article it isn't acceptable in its current state. I recommend the author move it to a sub-page on his own userpage and work on it more before releasing it into the Wikipedia main space. It could be a decent article, properly sourced with appropriate neutral language. -Amatulic 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had a look at this when Blueboar raised it at the Village Pump, and my opinion, then and now, is that the non-OR, non-SOAP parts of the article don't amount to more than a dicdef. There's nothing here that doesn't fall into one or other of the sorts of things that Wikipedia is not, and no amount of remedial editing would change that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and I would be perfectly happy to join the consensus to delete. The subject of this article, if any, is the phrase "unholy alliance", with a lot of examples of usage strung on that thread. This may belong at Wiktionary; that's their decision. It certainly doesn't belong here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP IT because this is only several of the alliances that are detrimental to our world. — 12.76.209.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:21, March 15, 2007 (UTC). -- Avi 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP IT - all cited, referenced, attributed, or sourced - no Googles. — 74.227.121.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:49, March 15, 2007 (UTC). -- Avi 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since the filing of this AfD, there has been some work done on sourcing statements. A lot more needs to be done, and some of the sources are questionable... but it is a step in the right direction.  That said, the issues with POV, and especially the issues with unsourced syntheses and Original Reserach remain (in fact, I find that they have gotten worse, as individual problem paragraphs have now been combined into one huge unbroken paragraph).  Unfortunately, none of the improvement is enough to change my opinion of the article. Blueboar 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this posting, work has been done to address these issues, hopefully to satisfaction. --MBHiii 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no... some of the citations added are to blogs (which are not considered reliable), some are to unattributed PDF pages (where do these pages come from, who compiled the data, and in what context?), and there are still many statements that are unsourced. Not to mention that the basic POV and original research/unsourced synthesis issues have not been addressed. Blueboar 19:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Blog ref. deleted, maps and tables attributed, satisfactory? --MBHiii 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * MBHiii - you keep missing the point. While I appreciate the work you are doing to improve the quality of citations, they are minor improvements that do not address the major issue, which is POV language and Original Research and Synthesis.  Nothing you have done has address those points.  You can cite each individual sentence all you want, but without a reliable source that ties them all together, the article is POV and OR.  See the WP:SYNT section of WP:ATT for the applicable policy.Blueboar 14:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP IT - Very good article. Makes important points. Article is well documented and well written. Should not delete to satisfy certain political view. — 71.70.165.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:10, March 15, 2007 (UTC). Note: There have been No contributions from the imaginary Mfreskos. -- Avi 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete - Usually I would recommend RfC, as suggested by Armed Blowfish above, because the primary problems are OR and POV, which are usually fixable. (As, indeed, the citation issues have been somewhat addressed, although the effect is that now it's a very well-documented rant, as the sources seem to be cited to support the OR argument, rather than to document how the term is frequently used.) However, I don't see this article ending up as more than a dictionary definition once all the POV and OR are taken out. From the discussion it appears that this term is more of an expression (which doesn't justify having an article to archive its uses) than, say, a political science term of art (which might very well justify an article to explain a poli sci concept). So even if it's fixed, I doubt it will ever be an encyclopedia article. The way to save this article is to find better sources, not more sources—professional or academic sources using it in a political studies context. DCB4W 15:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WRONG - the article is in no sense a rant. Such language, where it exists, is to be found on this page and the discussion page, but, most importantly, not in the article itself, which has become a comparatively dry listing of facts, descriptions, and instances of the subject, as it should be. I don't suppose any self-professed Republican, such as yourself, would be too happy with this article's existence, but I would expect a self-professed skeptic, such as yourself, would be quite happy with it. Anyway, calls are in to academics cited, Callahan, Yandle, and others. --216.77.231.87 17:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you caught us: half-page Wikipedia article, listing "instances of the subject," has all of us at the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy very, very unhappy. (While we're on the subject of rants, that article has a pro-Republican one. Let me address that.)DCB4W 00:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP AND MAKE A COPY (small joke). I agree it's a work in process. I find it a fascinating collection of concepts that feed my philosphical questioning about -- guess what? Yes! That's right! "Unholy alliances!" Perhaps if some insult doesn't get this article banned I can add something to it. I don't find any OR or POV certainly not over the top and nothing that can't be obliterated by the next editor. --Xgenei 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep - the article premise (that "unholy alliance" has been used to describe religious groups working with political ones) is fine, the WP:SYN and WP:NPOV problems come from the examples—so delete just the offending material! (ie, "Ralph Reed...bootlegging.[19]") The article can still talk about the southern strategy (very mainstream), Ratlines (mainstream enough to have an article), and Eisenhower's and Roosevelt's quotes and the context. And surely it would be possible to talk about the corresponding section of Kevin Phillips' book neutrally, perhaps with some critical reactions? --gwc 04:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A problem with your partial delete idea is that Reed's position as a Christian leader among conservative voters was understandably why he was picked to lobby against the Alabama lottery. He knew the money was coming from Indian casino gambling people who would benefit greatly (more gambling for them) if the lottery was killed, so he tried to deny it all, and was caught. (all documented in the links; that's why they're there) He's a Christian leader, they went to jail, so it's a "special" instance (religious/criminal) of an unholy alliance. Another "special" instance (religious/criminal) is the KY Baptist/Bootlegger thing which incidentally was explicitly called "the Unholy Alliance" in KY since the early 1900s.216.77.231.87 06:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No vote - 216.77.231.87, I'm a little confused by the non sequiturs, but I think what you're saying is that this article is not about "unholy alliances" but about "The Unholy Alliance" with some other examples (ie, Ratlines) as context. If this is the case, then I must retract my former opinion.
 * non sequiturs? What's your problem with having "the (so-called) Unholy Alliance in KY" used as an example of unholy alliances, in general (especially since it fits the "special" religious/criminal definition)?216.77.231.87 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have separated out the actual encyclopedic content related to the concept of an unholy alliance from the several questionable examples of such. (perm link) It should be easy enough to see that there's actually very little going on here worth keeping. – &#160;Þ&#160;  00:28, 19 March 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.