Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus seems to be that the coverage of the church is various sources presented is enough to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Bible Church

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created during the Sarah Palin media frenzy of 2008. As extreme as some of their beliefs may sound to some, they are par for the course in evangalical churches throughout the United States. The only thing that makes this one any different than hundreds of other non-notable churches is that Palin went there, but notability is not inherited. Was previously nominated in the middle of the 2008 election season and, unsurprisingly, there was no consensus.

Will momentarily bundle Wasilla Assembly of God into this nomination for exactly the same reasons. Actually Palin stopped attending there six years before she was chosen by McCain so the claim to notability there is even weaker. Both of these articles are just a coat rack for discussing Palin's religious beliefs, which are adequately covered in her own article.

As to the apparent abundance of sources used, they seem to fall into three categories:

The two churches own websites

Coverage primariliy about Palin that mentions she attended on or the other of these churches

Routine events coverage from the local press

Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG by virtue of coverage in Newsweek VIA DAILY BEAST, as well as coverage as a VICTIM OF APPARENT ARSON. The church's pastor, Larry Kroon, has been the subject of coverage in THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY and interviewed by FOX NEWS. This institution was certainly a part of campaign 2008, perhaps influencing in some small way the outcome of that race, certainly obtaining the necessary degree of coverage and lasting historical and biographical notice to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the sources that are both RS and substantial, the coverage centers on either Palin or Pastor Kroon. The church itself is mentioned only in passing. The only exception is the Newsweek piece (linked above by Carrite thru Daily Beast), which does cover the church in detail. However, the piece make a few telling quotes, "is perhaps most remarkable for being unremarkable" and "Except for the national spotlight, Wasilla Bible Church resembles thousands of conservative evangelical churches across the country." This leads me to believe that coverage of this topic will not improve over time, is related to a single event (Palin's declaration of what church see goes to), and that its notability is inherited. I could be swayed by local coverage that covers the topic in detail, but the fire piece doesn't cut it for me. The Interior (Talk) 20:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. WP:ONEEVENT basically applies here as well, just substitute "church" for "person," the principle is the same. Nobody paid any notice to the churches before or after the 2008 presidential race because there is nothing remarkable about either of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect WP:ONEEVENT is a Biography of Living Persons rule, it has nothing to do with institutions. We're looking here for evidence that this institution is the subject of multiple, substantial, independently-published pieces of coverage to meet GNG. I believe this church meets that standard owing to its close association with a candidate for Vice President of the United States. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my remark I endeavored to make it clear that I understand perfectly well that it is a BLP rule but that the underlying principle still applies. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Putting another source into play, here's THE WEEKLY STANDARD with "Clinging to Her Religion: The faith journey of Sarah Palin, 'Bible-believing Christian.'" This institution is an important part of the Palin biography and it should not be a redlink. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, with the subsection headlined Wasilla Bible Church appearing about 2/3 down the page. Carrite (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arson attack on the church was important enough to be covered by THE LOS ANGELES TIMES. This is not about Sarah Palin, is it? Carrite (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's THE WESTERN CENTER FOR JOURNALISM with a piece from 2010 (i.e. 2 years after Palin left the stage), entitled "Leftist Media Still Ignores Questions About Who Torched Sarah Palin’s Church." Carrite (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's THE MINNESOTA INDEPENDENT with a piece on Palin's religious ideology, which goes towards the importance of that topic to the 2008 race even if it doesn't count directly towards GNG here... Carrite (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are primariliy about Palin. Except the " Western Media" one which is very obviously not a reliable source. Amd the LA Times article? Well, the title of the article is "Services today moved as suspicious fire wrecks Sarah Palin's church" Right under the picture of the burned church is a picture of Palin, and three of the four paragraphs of the article mention her. So yeah, even though it is supposedly an article about an arson fire in Alaska (not a subject that would normally draw any notice whatsoever from mass media outside of Alaska) yes, the article is primarily about Palin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - undeserved attention, even if negative, implies notability. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, these articles are far from the only Sarah Palin-related coatracks out there. I grew tired of trying to point this out to the lemming-like masses who create messes like this in response to their daily talking points memo, or to obsessive coverage given by CNN/Fox News/etc., or perhaps any other equally-as-banal reason. Usually, you'll hear some excuse like WP:SOFIXIT, offering the appearance that as far as they're concerned, it's someone else's job to actually clean it up and/or do the real work, because they've already moved on to the next lost cause. Methinks numerous of these editors need to be reminded a little more often of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FART or possibly other pertinent pages. Without actually reading any of the sources offered by Carrite, just clicking on the links and browsing the articles, what do I see? Sarah Palin's name and/or photo plastered front and center. The church only appears prominently in these stories in the context of Sarah Palin's association with the church. This validates the point raised by Beeblebrox in the first place. Meanwhile, it's almost as if there is a concerted effort being maintained on Wikipedia to deny the notability of Anchorage Baptist Temple. This church's notability can be documented back to 1978, even if the overwhelming majority of it centers on the political activism of its pastors and congregation.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The well-documented arson attack puts the church over the notability line, just like 16th Street Baptist Church. -- 202.124.74.3 (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree that notability is not inherited, but having been preserved during WP:COATRACK attacks on Sarah Palin, I see no reason to delete now. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a book I am now perusing: "Palmer has a modern hotel, motel, lodge, up-to-date garages and service stations, department and specialty stores and cafes, a weekly newspaper - The Frontiersman"...Stop. The book in question is the 1964 edition of The Milepost. In other words, according to this reliable source, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman was a going concern the year Sarah Palin was born. From reading that article, however, you would believe that the newspaper's entire history is coincidental with that of Sarah Palin's political career. Four years later, the people who created messes like that are still content to sit back and act as if it's someone else's responsibility to fix it. Deleting these articles would be a step towards fixing that problem. These churches aren't important outside of Wasilla or the Palin universe.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this was a good use of bundling... in any case, looking at google news hits leads to support a keep for both. The Assembly of God church is probably more notable though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', meets GNG, WP:NTEMP applies. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.