My view on this is probably similar but probably not identical to Cirts 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 WPSynthesis Its most probably true but not the sort of thing were meant to be doing on Wikipedia ii Theres 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 dont and to my mind shouldnt unless a WPSECONDARY source feels it sufficiently relevantimportant a description to make use of it This means that such articles arent loaded up with truebutofdoubtfulrelevance WPIINFO descriptions I suspect that part of the problem is that much of the secondarysource writing concentrates on CARM rather than Slick personally However this simply means that per WPDUE we should follow suit P