The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Although "Christian" and "Republic" are both notable terms, and very important topics, the two of them together do not seem to create a notable topic for a WP article. It is possible to say "Christian republic" (and it is said fairly often) but there does not seem to be any consistent meaning, which is reflected by the state of the article. WP:Neologism and WP:Original research could also be invoked against this article. Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Your idea of "original research" is ludicrous, and not in line with our Wikipedia:no original research policy's concept. The idea that (mainly) 20th century scholarly analysis of 15th to 18th century thought by several of the most prominent thinkers of classical republicanism is "original research", and a novel hypothesis of any form, is so blatantly wrong that it almost makes one wonder whether you formed the conclusion that this was original research as a sheep vote to follow what was above, and tried to interpret the article to fit the preconceived conclusion.
Did you pick up a single one of the sources cited and check it against the article? If you didn't, you have no basis for even knowing whether this is original research, let alone stating that conclusion in an AFD discussion as if you had checked the content against sources to see whether they advanced the same conclusions. Try the book by Marcela Cristi, professor at the University of Waterloo, first. (There's a hint in the edit summaries that it's a good place to start.)
Did it not occur to you to wonder why Roscelese's rationale (to pick just one) stated things that simply weren't true about the article that you saw in front of you? Uncle G ( talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The ideal of the Christian republic is a particular sub-set of these. For example, in Europe a state church has often been associated with monarchical government, or at least constitutional monarchy, so is not exclusively republican. And many republican theorists would reject the idea of limiting their republic to a particular faith and might exclude religious 'interference'. The article needs better historical context and reference to theorists or a political movement advocating such a system and an explanation or exposition of their case. John Locke's comments cannot really be understood without knowledge of the Levellers and similar movements around the time of the English Civil War and Commonwealth a generation or so before he was writing. Whether the Levellers were Christian republicans may be a topic for discussion, but the case can be made, and indeed some would have seen the Commonwealth itself in those terms. For these reasons I don't think that the topic can easily be subsumed into another article because of the overlaps, and it certainly qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia in terms of importance. I don't think that the article on modern Christian Democracy will do as a home either, both because it is concerned with the modern political movement and is not necessarily republican, though there should be a cross-reference because there is a continuity of ideas. Yes to emphasising that the idea is more to do with political theory than religion, but then the distinction is precisely one that its advocates were trying to reject. AJHingston ( talk) 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Although "Christian" and "Republic" are both notable terms, and very important topics, the two of them together do not seem to create a notable topic for a WP article. It is possible to say "Christian republic" (and it is said fairly often) but there does not seem to be any consistent meaning, which is reflected by the state of the article. WP:Neologism and WP:Original research could also be invoked against this article. Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Your idea of "original research" is ludicrous, and not in line with our Wikipedia:no original research policy's concept. The idea that (mainly) 20th century scholarly analysis of 15th to 18th century thought by several of the most prominent thinkers of classical republicanism is "original research", and a novel hypothesis of any form, is so blatantly wrong that it almost makes one wonder whether you formed the conclusion that this was original research as a sheep vote to follow what was above, and tried to interpret the article to fit the preconceived conclusion.
Did you pick up a single one of the sources cited and check it against the article? If you didn't, you have no basis for even knowing whether this is original research, let alone stating that conclusion in an AFD discussion as if you had checked the content against sources to see whether they advanced the same conclusions. Try the book by Marcela Cristi, professor at the University of Waterloo, first. (There's a hint in the edit summaries that it's a good place to start.)
Did it not occur to you to wonder why Roscelese's rationale (to pick just one) stated things that simply weren't true about the article that you saw in front of you? Uncle G ( talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The ideal of the Christian republic is a particular sub-set of these. For example, in Europe a state church has often been associated with monarchical government, or at least constitutional monarchy, so is not exclusively republican. And many republican theorists would reject the idea of limiting their republic to a particular faith and might exclude religious 'interference'. The article needs better historical context and reference to theorists or a political movement advocating such a system and an explanation or exposition of their case. John Locke's comments cannot really be understood without knowledge of the Levellers and similar movements around the time of the English Civil War and Commonwealth a generation or so before he was writing. Whether the Levellers were Christian republicans may be a topic for discussion, but the case can be made, and indeed some would have seen the Commonwealth itself in those terms. For these reasons I don't think that the topic can easily be subsumed into another article because of the overlaps, and it certainly qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia in terms of importance. I don't think that the article on modern Christian Democracy will do as a home either, both because it is concerned with the modern political movement and is not necessarily republican, though there should be a cross-reference because there is a continuity of ideas. Yes to emphasising that the idea is more to do with political theory than religion, but then the distinction is precisely one that its advocates were trying to reject. AJHingston ( talk) 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply