Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.187.76.80 (talk) at 13:48, 14 July 2008 (→‎List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism

AfDs for this article:
List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article inherently violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Dominionism is a label that is mostly used by political opponents of the Christian right, thus this article necessarily reflects a particular political point of view.Wkdewey (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article contains egregious examples of guilt-by-association and assertion of opinion as facts. The fact that the "usage not embraced" takes up other half of both the screensize and bytesize of the article says to me that there's POV pushing by over-referencing. The problem has existed for several months, and efforts to neutralise have been reverted and attacked. While deletion should not be used in disputes, it is sadly the only way to fix the POV problem. Sceptre (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sceptre pretty much summed up what I would say. Tavix (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article doesn't seem to be 'inherently' violating anything, even if it could do with a tidy up. Skinny87 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as entries are properly sourced the article doesn't 'inherently' violate any policy. BTW, this list is the product of a community discussion whereupon by the community agreed that this list was a reasonable compromise in place of the Dominionism template, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_27#Template:Dominionism. I hate to see that discussion reopened, let's keep it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Kelly hi! 00:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The whole idea that WP needs to obsessively detail name-calling against Christians is problematic, to say the least. However, there is a significant fraction of long-standing editors who feel that it does. It was a long hard debate to get this content at least put into some context and limited primarily to this page. I fear Sceptre may be sadly mistaken in thinking deletion will "fix the problem"; rather, deletion may cause the content to re-appear in other places where it belongs even less. FM has already threatened as much. I can't bring myself to say "keep", but unless there is clear evidence that deletion will not simply re-open old battles, I cannot support it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is a mess. To start, people and organizations should be seperate lists. Second, the list becomes even more indiscriminate when it includes organizations who are not identified with Dominionism, but as Theocratic. Cut it down to sourced entries of one or the other with a single common label, and it might be worth keeping, but not anything close to this. Jim Miller (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [T]he list becomes even more indiscriminate when it includes organizations who are not identified with Dominionism, but as Theocratic. I'm sorry - it does? On this list? Where? Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not. I didn't bother to go any farther than the line that says "Organizations that have been described as Dominionist or theocratic include:" since that made the list indicriminate by its own wording. Jim Miller (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the first thing that jumped to mind was a 1950s version of Wikipedia having an article List of Communist infiltrators trying to topple the government, all edited by User:WisconsinSenator (and no doubt, he would have had references too). I don't doubt there are people/organizations who share this idea, but exceptional care needs to be paid to sources to make sure they are as neutral as humanly possible. Having taken a very cursory look, I am not sure that this is the case. Even so, I can already foresee the edit warring that will take place over the neutrality of the sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need articles that list people by some label made up by their political and ideological opponents. The fact remains this term has almost never been used by any mainstream news source. We don't have a list called "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" that contains the names of world leaders because a reliable but biased right-wing political magazine does, so we shouldn't list these people as "Dominionists" because some activist left-wing magazines do. Merzbow (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the BLP and NPOV problems mentioned, WP is really supposed to be an encyclopedia. To me that means articles for people to read. We have the article Dominionism. (But if you like lists how about one on Americans who have been compared to Adolf Hitler, with good references of course? :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic, notable orangizations, all should be able to be sourced. Can't be compared with embarrassing personal information that I can see. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting on the nomination statement re: NPOV. Since the list is technically a split-off from Dominionism, all POV concerns should be directed there. Additionally, from the nomination, I get the impression that you think we could achieve greater accuracy and neutrality by e.g. renaming the articles from Dominionism to so-called "Dominionism", which albeit is not compatible with our article naming guidelines and also not necessary: Article titles are not meant to be strictly encyclopedically accurate; they are meant to improve accessibility and usability for the reader. Whether or not the term "Dominionism" reflects an immanent non-neutrality is entirely irrelevant for the article title. The accurate, referenced info is in the article itself. Ergo: Don't nominate an article for deletion just because you expect other people to not read past the title. Don't nominate articles for deletion for non-neutrality (real or otherwise) in the first place. Improve as necessary and useful instead. Also, keep the list as discriminate, referenceable, legitimately article-size-based split from the parent article. user:Everyme 13:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_and_organizations_associated_with_Dominionism_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=225594534"