Deletion of Dominionist political parties

Comment: per  (and per the article itself which currently reads "None of the parties use this term to describe themselves, and it's not a term generally used in the media to describe them (if at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: open to persuasion if proper sourcing is implemented. (Sidenote: ''Putting a comment after my message doesn't constitute sourcing, sourcing is what happens when  and  get implemented in an article''...) Here we have a list of parties that do not seem to claim to hold the ideology in question and are not generally described as characterized by the ideology in question. The main usage of the ''political term'' Dominionism seems to be almost exclusively as an "attack phrase" - not an academically-identified distinction and not a "movement" that individuals or groups ascribe to (some seem to call themselves "Reconstructionists" instead). This largely defeats the purpose of having such a list - it's a lot like having a "List of politicians described as idiots by their political opponents and critics, although not generally characterized as such by themselves, or their supporters, or by the media in general, and despite the fact that academic work has identified neither a coherent pan-idiotic movement nor a wider phenomenon of independent movements sharing similar characteristics that can be labelled as idiotic" and then giving the article the name "List of idiotic politicians". In general, if an article is badly referenced, we tend to let is sit there with a "please fix my references!" tag on and just hope it isn't going to be harmful until it gets fixed. Since this list seems unlikely to ever be fixed in this way, and has the potential to be harmful until it is (who can tell which parties should be listed on it?), it ought to be removed, at least for the moment and until better references present themselves
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE||WP:V)

Comment: I would point out that none of our articles on these political parties uses the word Dominionist or Dominionism. The only article that does use the term is Christian Reconstructionism, which is included on this list strangely enough even though it is not a political party. No references or sources of any kind are given, hence the list would not seem to be "well supported" but does violate . To top it off, someone has now created :Category:Dominionist parties. And while accusing the nom of being on an AFD binge comparable to a sock puppet may be an effective diversionary tactic, it also does not seem to be true since I can't find any other recent AfD noms from
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per .  I don't know or care about the nominators bias.  It doesn't matter.  This page violates core policy of verifiability and neutrality.  Even if this page is 100% true.  It seems we have a case, of Wikipedians doing some original research, in applying a definition of a term to each case.  That's original research.  Even if you come to the correct conclusion, you can't attach a label yourself.  You have to go by external reliable sources.  Also, readers must not think Wikipedia takes a political position on what to label political parties.  They must see who is saying what party has what label, know it's not us personally saying it.  I don't contest the truthfullness of the article, but truth is not enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)