My view on this is probably similar but probably not identical to Cirt s Speaking for myself I have two problems with the use of Calvinist on this basis i there are multiple ways that calling a website The Calvinist Corner the most obvious is that Slick is writing from a Calvinist perspective Another might be that he is writing about Calvinism To take the former as true and draw the the conclusion that Slick is a Calvinist is an inference and thus WP Synthesis It s most probably true but not the sort of thing we re meant to be doing on Wikipedia ii There s a fairly strong Calvinist thread through much most of conservative evangelical Christianity There are probably dozens of articles where we could find a similar level of evidence for applying the word Calvinist We don t and to my mind shouldn t unless a WP SECONDARY source feels it sufficiently relevant important a description to make use of it This means that such articles aren t loaded up with true but of doubtful relevance WP IINFO descriptions I suspect that part of the problem is that much of the secondary source writing concentrates on CARM rather than Slick personally However this simply means that per WP DUE we should follow suit TalkStalk P