Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinism (3rd nomination)

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. Without prejudice to a new, well-sourced article on this or a related subject.  Sandstein  06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinism

Kinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources provided are unreliable, and there is no proof that the subject possesses

• Delete I trimmed a lot of unsourced negative information, and what's left is still under-cited for what it asserts. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this is deleted for a third time, I suggest we either
  salt it or make it a protected redirect to somewhere appropriate. Note that it had recently been PROD'ed for the full 7 days, before an admin noticed the topic had been previously deleted by AfD. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Sorry to say at this point. I was able to find a few references in places such as
  Google Book as shown here [2]. In addition, I did find their web-site here [3]. However, to me, this does not delineate notability in that there is no Significant coverage of the group. A viable fringe conservative Christian group yes. A notable fringe right wing conservative Christian group no. Sorry. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge/Redirect to
  Christian Reconstructionism. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator. There appears to be a distinct racism connotation to this which seems to distinguish it from Christian Reconstructionism, so I don't think a redirect there would be wholly appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt per past discussions and above. Completely non-notable and
  merely a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Uncertain I am unable to figure out which references if any refer to this particular group. The term seems to have been used in a variety of ways over the last two centuries [4]. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any verifiable content and redirect to
  Christian Reconstructionism. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm not sure if
  Anglo-Israelism don't seem to fit perfectly, either (although they'd be a better fit than C.R. would be). See my comment below. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Or, this page could be merged into
  R. L. Dabney, since Kinism appears to be based on Dabney's philosophy. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Idea: Personally, if we must have a redirect, I would suggest creating a short new article called
  Christianity and slavery which is about a related (but not the same) topic, could serve as a model. How does that sound? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think that's a solid idea, but it would be a completely new and unrelated article, so that can be done regardless of the outcome of this debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to this either, but in order for Kinism to be a valid redirect, it should appear in the target article. I'm not yet convinced that any' RS sufficient to meet V exist, so call this cautious optimism. Of course, the suggested article can exist whether or not Kinism is made into a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. None are cited in the article, and I couldn't fine any in my own search. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.