Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator. Bduke 11:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism

Dominionism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Blatant POV fork. There is no way this article can be salvaged. RucasHost 04:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Article's been around since 2004. What's it forked from? Don't assume everyone reading the AfD knows the history of the editing dispute in question. cab 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep It's hard to assume good faith here after perusing this editor's userpage. Article is notable and very well sourced, and no valid rationale for deletion is given. faithless (^speak) 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I gave a very valid reason, the article clearly pushes a certain POV. At the very least, an extensive re-write is nessecary to make this article NPOV. --RucasHost 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment How does it push a POV? The very first sentence contains the word "alleged" and the second sentence addresses that it is a controversial topic. It is quite neutral. Even if it did push a POV, that's not a reason to delete the article. faithless (^speak) 05:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; no policy reason to even bring it up for deletion; the topic is notable, the article is thoroughly referenced and reasonabley balanced, and has active ongoing editing without too much warring. Dicklyon 06:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are 38 sources in this article. If the nominator wishes to improve the article by adding new material he's welcome to do so, but disagreeing with something on wikipedia isn't a valid reason for its deletion. Nick mallory 07:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a blatant POV article so much as a blatant POV AfD nomination. It's a potentially controversial subject, but the article steers a steady course through it - and anyway it easily meets notability criteria. This is an encyclopedia, and dominionism is a valid and notable subject for it. Snalwibma 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep this is an important, notable topic, widely discussed in a variety of media. The nominator's rationale is incoherent anyway. Someone close this as WP:SNOW please. ornis (t) 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep This nomination is very ill-timed. User:RucasHost apparently did not read the article's talk page before making this nomination. There has been an extended conversation on POV and related issues over the past week, and I will post a set of new topics in the next day or two, when my research is completed. Please let the consensus process take its course. --BlueMoonlet 09:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Alright, I will withdraw this AFD. How do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RucasHost (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 September 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.