Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominionist political parties
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
— User:TheGrappler, 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CITE||WP:V (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)