Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. BJTalk 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Bible Church[edit]

Wasilla Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable church which lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources for verifiability Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I do not know Jasynnash2 or what his motivations may be. This is the church that Sarah Palin attends. It is drawing significant national attention. The article is well-sourced even from newspaper articles and books that pre-date her candidacy.Elan26 (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Gtstricky, while your opinion is interesting, please note that Time magazine and Newsweeek Magazine disagree with you. Newsweek has an entire article dedicated to this church. Itis on the page. This is, by the way, a large, successful congregation with multiple pastors and written up in at least one book as a model of a sucessful evangelical congregation. it would be notable without Sarah palin. I post Wikipedia articles on churches and synagogues reguarly. Why do I suspect political motivations in this deletion discussion? Is it because the article on her pastor Larry Kroon was deleted without an AFD, despite copious sources? Elan26 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
I am as unpolitical as you can get. If it was not for Sarah neither of the articles that you cited would have been written and they both focus more on her then the church. But that is just my opinion and that is why we have an AFD process... GtstrickyTalk or C 17:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that her church is getting more press by the minute. Going neutral for a few days but I suspect it will gain notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was her old church (Wasilla Assembly of God) getting the press today [1] GtstrickyTalk or C 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justinfr, all high schools are similar, all Presbyterian and Catholic churches are similar. All sunni mosques are similar. Nevertheless, we give the big ones and the ones that draw attention because they have notable members, notable pastors, or notable buildings on Wikipedia. This church is large, and it is bein gdiscussed in the media. Newsweek published an entire article about it because people want to know. One of the things the article said is that it is "similar" to thousands of other large, American, Evangelical churches. This paints a picture, it does not lessen the notability of the chuch. Notre Dame is similar to a score of other gothic cathedrals. that doesn't mean that we should take th epage down.Elan26 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Point taken. It would just be nice if the article included more than, "This is the church that Sarah Palin attends." That could just as easily be on her page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete I think this fails WP:NOT#NEWS, actually, since the only reason the church is being covered is because a particular politician attends. I'm inclined to think this should be Transwiki'ed to Wikinews, since there will likely never be additional RS coverage of this particular congregation once the presidential race is over. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, Your argument would be more convincing if you would explain why you have not proposed the Trinity United Church of Christ for deletion. Trinity United got a wikipedia page on Feb. 12, 2008. when a individual is chosen to run for President at least in part because of teh support she will dreaw from fellow evangelical Christians, her church and her pastor beocme notable.Elan26 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sound argument Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.

The Wikipedia:Notability policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.

The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.

For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.

If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.

But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.

Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.

All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.

They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.

Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.

Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church have been the subject of controversy in The Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, ABC News, MSNBC, and other news sources. But suppose they were not. These kinds of problems are going to recur, so a general policy for handling these should be arrived at. EricDiesel (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. No where does WP:NOTE state that notability in inherited by association to another topic (ie. Sarah Palin). So your whole diatribe claiming that notability is inherited is not supported by the notability guideline and therefore irrelevant. --Farix (Talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

Thaaaat would explain why its back open again. I just thought I was going crazy.Umbralcorax (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't be compared to Trinity United Church of Christ with Obama, as the church in that instance was significant in the story, whereas this Church really isn't. Just can't see a reason to keep forking the topic matter. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Yes, this church's notability comes chiefly from national attention being paid to Sarah Palin's religious and political beliefs. It may not have been notable six months ago. So what? Ford's Theatre was a minor local venue until it became a center of attention for reasons entirely unrelated to its actual stage productions. Very simply, Sarah Palin's being elevated to a major party Presidential ticket, based at least in part on her appeal to evangelical Christians, has cast the spotlight of history on her religious background. This means that the churches she attends easily meet the basic requirements of substantial third party coverage in reliable sources.

    This is not a "coatrack article". That amounts to a claim that bad faith motivates the attention these churches have received in the media, and therefore the existence of an article on this church. This is a two edged sword; it strikes me instead that a prodigious amount of Wiki-lawyering is going on to remove these articles, or failing that to gut them and remove most of their substance. I have every confidence that a good enough article can be written about these churches and the substance of their teachings. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one took an awful lot of consideration but I have to agree with Smerdis of Tlön with regards to the substantial coverage that this church has received. What have we learned from Mzoli's? JBsupreme (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I was looking for it on Wikipedia (that led me here) others will be looking for it - articles that people may look for should be kept! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Strong - FOX News just did a long segment on the church, with barely a mention of Palin, about its style of speaking in tongues, coming convention to pray to convert gays to straights, and longstanding relationship with Jews for Jesus and David Brickner. EricDiesel (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric, do you have a link for that? I may change my stance if so. Keeper ǀ 76 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is clearly wrong about sources, and there will be plenty more. Palin has made this one notable, like it or not. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources in article all seem to be about a politician, and not about the church. The church itself appears to be get any discussion because of career of one of it's former parishoners, and as such isn't itself notable. If necessary redirect to Sarah Palin. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consider this a strong endorsement for keep. I just turned to Wikipedia for information about this church and honestly I'm shocked that we're trying to delete the article about it. If there is a content issue it can be resolved through the normal editorial channels but this is clearly a notable church as per our own notability guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Keep -- I am not convinced that this church is a great deal more notable than many others. Nevertheless, it is comparatively harmless, if it can be trimmed of the WP:COATRACK issues currently in it. That Sarah Palin is a member is worth mentioning. This also applies to the gay-diversion and Brickner issues, but at present they have an excessive prominence, probably attempts at innuendo from opponents of Sarah Palin. NOTE - I may have commented above - not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Smerdis. The church is now notable due to Sarah Palin's current attendence. She identifies as a conservative Christian, that is an important issue in her campaign for the vice presidency, and this is the church she has chosen to attend.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Notability is not inherited. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Temporarily a hot topic because of its famous congregant, and only included on Wikipedia because of the huge battle on Wikipedia to paint Sarah Palin as the best thing since sliced bread/the embodiment of evil. Other than that the church is entirely unnotable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 2[edit]

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The media has covered the clothes of Sarah Palin. That doesn't mean her skirt deserves a separate Wikipedia article. The intro of the article actually makes a case for the church being like thousands of other churches, rather than to establish any lasting notability. It deserves mentioning in the Sarah Palin article and in the Wasilla article, but not an article of it's own. -Duribald (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has become of widespread public interest, as shown by RS/. That's the basic definition of unquestionable notability. DGG (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to be of the view that this should be kept. The article has now been pruned of all elements of WP:COATRACK, leaving a short, but non-trivial, article. Voted above. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how WP:Before applies. The clarity you mention is not so clear to me. This article has established notability per WP:N, and should just be kept, not redirected. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says: "...substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability." Listing sources is thus not a guarantee of notability. See my comment above. -Duribald (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEWS for me. This church is only being covered in the media cos a currently famous person sometimes went in to it. Has nothing of lasting notability to say about it. We don't have articles for all the other VP candidates in histroy, indicating that as soon as the election is over, this church will no longer be interesting to the news, and it's current "notability" is a temporary mirage.Yobmod (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that it fails Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS?! -Duribald (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When will it end?! Grsztalk 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP With the New York Times interviewing the Pastor in a story that ran in half a dozen European newspapers (really, you can read about this cuhrch in Swedish, German, French...) the notability is patent. Of Course people are only interested inthis church because it is where Sarah palin prays. But with Sarah Palin now having a non negligible chance of becoming the President of the United States, everything about a church that shapes and/or reflects her beliefs is notable.Elan26 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Only one !vote per AFD please. Thank you GtstrickyTalk or C 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I thought it was a new AFD. Because the page had been taken down a week or so ago.Elan26 (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
  • Delete Not notable on its own. As an aside, if the Obama supporters were working as hard on his campaign as they are on trashing Sarah Palin here at Wikipedia, he might not be tanking in the polls. CENSEI (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, asides are just yucccchy, mmmkay... Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:43, 12 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wasilla_Bible_Church&oldid=1220936211"