Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God

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. While I personally think this should be deleted, and voted to do so. I think that there is enough here to go ahead an close this as No Consensus to Delete. If anything, the trend is to keep the article based upon the rising interest in the article. I see no reason to keep this article in AfD when the outcome appears so obvious to me. Another week will only result in "No Consensus" or "Keep" I don't see delete being a viable option as the church garners more speculative coverage. I do advise keeping a close eye on WP:Coatrack as this should not be an article about Palin. Unlike Wright, Palin left the church when she decided it was too extreme. Similarly, I do not believe this church would be notable at all if it wasn't for the fact of people trying to create a controversy similar to the Wright-Obama one. The similarities just aren't there. This is, at it's core, IMHO a non-notable church. There are other churches of similar size with equally questionable ethics that have garnered local attention (as has this one). In Denver there is a Pentacostal Church that has more independent notability than Palin's former church. But with the intention of making the church an issue, it has an artificial sense of notability. After the election, regardless of who wins, I think this AfD should be revisited, but at this time, I don't see it being deleted due to partisan politics. I know it shouldn't play a factor, but let's face it. The church is the flavor of the day. In a few months, I hope people realize that the hype around it today is merely wp:notnews. There is no need to relist. Keeping this AfD open is not going to do wikipedia any good, until the election is over, the church will be an issue..---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Assembly of God

[edit]
Wasilla Assembly of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article speedied under G4, graciously recreated to allow consensus to delete. I don't believe notablility has been established, and I'm going delete as notability is not inherited. Synergy 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "graciously recreated to allow consensus to delete" is a very odd phrase to use in launching a AFD debate, as it presupposes the outcome. Some editors argue for keeping and others for deleting. The closing admin should judge the merits of the arguments presented in relation to the applicable guidelines and policies, rather than any pre-ordained outcome or any mere plurality of "votes." Edison (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it oddly worded at all. If you checked the history, you would see that there were two prod tags on the article (none by me) which were removed by TheFairix. Then, Justinfr tagged it for speedy as G4. At about this time, a few editors were objecting when it was then deleted. I then asked that it be restored so we can take it to here to hold an actual debate. Graciously recreated... only means that the admin did it without further objection, and I found that very honorable, as I knew this would be a semi-controversial AfD, yet it saved us the time of a DRv. Synergy 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church cited by Fairix, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, not notable, likely coatrack target. Kelly hi! 02:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete - I think it's best not to speedy this, so that if it's created again, it can be speedied as an article that was deleted as a result of a full debate. Nope, I've changed my mind. This church has now obviously gotten multiple, independent coverage in major media sources. (Note, Synergy's comment is in reply to my original delete !vote.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this reasoning, you would be creating a condition whereby if it is deleted here, but later becomes clearly notable (there are now 412 News stories on Google), it would be very difficult to stop an article from being deleted. Why are so many people so interested in keeping this article out? The Wasilla Bible Church or Larry Kroon article based on a February 7, 2007 Atlantic Monthly article would not have been deleted without a five day period and debate, if Palin had not been nominated a year and a half later, which amounts to a kind of “reverse non notability”.EricDiesel (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is it being suggested here that any Church with
  1. with two mentions
  2. in a 70,000 circulation newspaper
is a Church which is notable and should be included in the Wikipedia? Is that the objective criteria seriously being suggested here? patsw (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't think of a single church in my community that doesn't do community service projects and food drives. I wouldn't create an article on any of them, however. (And yes, there are local papers that have covered their efforts) - auburnpilot talk 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guidelines only state that coverage must be significant, and from a reliable third party. It doesn't segregate between "local" and "non-local". To ignore the ADN articles is to ignore the notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a target for coatracking, POV pushing, and general vandalism, but that is not a legitimate reason to delete. Who was using that as a rationale to delete? Synergy 02:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of these were brough up by searching the ADN archive. Unfortunately, linking directly to them is difficulty since the archives search engine doesn't create direct links.

Farix (Talk) 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for the record I don't doubt ADN is reliable or 3rd party but, it is only one source and therefore on it's own doesn't meet the verifiability criteria of multiple sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is yet another example of supporters of Sarah Palin trying to limit content that might hurt her political aspirations. There are literally 100s of churches in Category:Churches in the United States, many of which have far less notability than this one. Why haven't these received PROD tags? Because they aren't in the public radar. In other words, they are LESS notable.--Appraiser (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I need to go put my tinfoil hat back on, since you seem to be able to read my mind so well. In other words, don't make such unfounded accusations; they don't accomplish anything. - auburnpilot talk 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - Appraiser, that's utter nonsense, and you need to make an apology to every editor you've insulted here. I suspect I'm to your political left, but your accusations are grossly off-base and unfounded. (And don't pull out the useless WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, either; if there are in fact other articles about non-notable churches, nominate them for deletion and we can discuss them.) Ad hominem attacks against other editors will get you banned, and certainly will do nothing for your position. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited. All keep arguments boil down to the fact that Sarah Palin went there and that's not a strong argument. Tavix (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've provided two additional articles about the church's activities, combined with the two already existing on the article. That should be more then enough to establish notability. They have nothing to do with Sarah Palin or her associations with the church. What more must you need before say that the topic is notable? I am also insulted that you've declared my keep vote has anything to do with Palin when I didn't even bring her up. It clearly demonstrates that you haven't even read my comments. --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There are three sources. One is about Palin, so don't argue with me there. The other two are from a search site which does nothing to give information about anything, just the fact that a small town newspaper did a story about some fundraiser. Notability is not estabished here, its just a church and besides the fact that Palin went there, has nothing over the millions if not billions of other churches in the world. Tavix (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I didn't cite the New York Sun article, I did cite the two, now four, ADN articles as evidence towards notability. And since Anchorage is Alaska's largest city, it's as relevant as any other news source from any other city in the US. Declaring it as a "small town paper" and therefore not contributing towards notability is a disingenuous argument to make and reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 03:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Does anyone have full access to the various ADN articles? I generally can't tell from the free intros whether or not they amount to significant coverage about the church. The one titled "Fundraising Offers a Chance to Cool Off" is a grand total of 79 words in length, I can tell from the length alone that it is not useful. The "Harvest of Help" article appears from the intro likely to be non-useful; it looks likely to have at most one or two sentences about this church more than what is visible in the intro. GRBerry 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable church, period. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and RESTORE CONTENT ESTABLISHING NOTABILITY edited out.
Notability- Google has 412 NEWS results for “Wasilla Assembly of God”, and about 14,500 pages that are not News.
Notability- Palin has had more than two churches and pastors. Yet only two are notable, since their controversial teachings are mirrored in the very reasoning for public policy positions that made Palin a historic figure in the first place. They are notable, not by being linked to Palin, but to public policy posisions adopted by a government official.
Notability- Furthermore, both were featured and quoted for their controversial positions in either the Atlantic Monthly or the Chicago Tribune.
Reliable Sources- Atlantic Monthly, Chicago Tribune, and numerous other sources were cited.
The Atlantic Monthly story predates Palin's nomination.EricDiesel (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the Atlantic Monthly flogging the libel that Palin's youngest kid really isn't hers? Kelly hi! 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic Monthly Article was written on February 07, 2007, a year and a half ago, long BEFORE Palin was pregnant. But the two Wikipedia articles on the church and pastor were deleted once Palin was nominated, amounting to a "reverse notability" policy.EricDiesel (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasilla Assembly of God is featured in 412 NEWS stories, and is on about 14,500 web pages.
Ed Kalnins has 20 NEWS stories featuring him, and is in 2,560 web pages.
Wasilla Bible Church has 50 NEWS stories, and is in 2,400 web pages.
Larry Kroon is in 20 NEWS stories, (including being featured a February 07, 2007 Atlantic Weekly article about his anti Semitism that predates Sarah Palin’s nomination!), and is in 1,460 web pages.
Yet all these articles were deleted for nn or lack of news sources.
The Atlantic Monthly documenting Wasilla Bible Church anti Semitism came out on February 07, 2007, a year and a half BEFORE Palins was nominated.
The articles on Wasilla Bible Church and pastor Larry Kroon would not have been deleted if Palin had not been in the church at the time of the anti Semitic church rant, or had not been nominated for VP, which is sort of "reverse non notariety".EricDiesel (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm rising to the bait and I probably shouldn't but, your last statement is both a fallacy and insulting to the many editors on here that actually care about the project. The artilces on Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon would have been deleted even faster without the mention of Ms. Palin because they still would not have been remotely notable and verifiable within the policies and guidelines of this project. Verifiability means weighing quantity and quality of an article's "sources"/"references". The guidelines are quite clear on notability not being inherited and that verifiable claims of importance/signifcance must exist. Being "notable" because someone "famous" attends isn't valid, period and accusing valuable and honest contributors ot the project of bias simply because you disagree with them is ridiculous (as is spamming people's talkpages with the flawed rationale). Personally, I say ban all "coverage" of people's pastor, schoolteacher, etc from wikipedia regardless of political party, country of origin, etc. I'd rather see less about all of these non-notable people than constantly get badgered by people pushing agendas one way or the other. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the only possible way to test this theory would have been if the articles were created at that time. Oddly enough, nobody found either subject sufficiently notable for inclusion at the time. I wonder why? I'm also curious where the national coverage on this supposed outrage was? The mass media was as indifferent to these small town churches and preachers as Wikipedia was. Right up until Sarah Palin became nationally famous, that is. Sorry, but these people and organizations are just as non-notable today as they were last week as they were last year. Resolute 00:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject receives a passing reference in a handful of very recent news articles (WP:NOT#NEWS) but doesn't stand up on its own when examined for notability (WP:N). Article mentions Sarah Palin in order to infer notability, but could also be used as a basis for documenting Palin's religious views outside of her own article (WP:COATRACK). As subject and similar have been mentioned in passing in very recent news stories they have been picked up by search engines, however the quantitiy of results returned does not bear reflection on the quality or depth of information on said results (WP:GOOGLE). As the subject does not hold claim to any notability independent of other more notable subjects, it could potentially be speedily deleted (WP:CSD#A7). Having said that, the discussion here is useful in order to clarify why the subject is not notable, as well as examining and addressing any points the original authors may have. Many thanks, Gazimoff 08:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three 2005, 2006, and 2007Anchorage Daily News stories cited are not recent, and independent of Palin. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without the coatrack aspects, the church is not notable. Anything that needs to be said about this church should be said at Sarah Palin. Deli nk (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEPPalin’s religious affiliations and beliefs are the subject of intense scrutiny by the national media. And not merely the left wing media. USA Today, MSNBC, the Associated Press. Also the Wall Street Jorunal and the New York sun which are not left of center papers.

Yesterday, articles on her churches, Wasilla Bible Church and her pastors Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins were deleted after AFDs that were up for less than 24 hours. These articles ought to be restored, improved, monitored, and expanded. These are real and important topics. We are choosing a President. The beliefs of a woman with non-negligible odds of becomein President are relevant. Here are the first few entries on today’s News google, I searched Wasilla Assembly of God. It is not a mere incidental mention. These are articles about her church, pastors and beliefs. There are many more today. It does not require a crystal ball to know that there will be more in the coming days.

Pentecostalism obscured in Palin biography By ERIC GORSKI and RACHEL ZOLL – 5 hours ago ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian. Associated Press [1]

Palin's Faith Is Seen In Church Upbringing By SUZANNE SATALINE September 4, 2008; Page A6 , Wall Street JOurnal [2]

Palin's former minister comes under scrutiny Updated 11h 37m ago

By Robert Stern, USA Today

[3]

Editorial of The New York Sun | September 4, 2008 New York Sun, United States [4]

Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God' The Associated Press - 10 hours ago [5]

The Palin church video MSNBC - Sep 2, 2008 [6]

Palin Asks for Prayers that War be "Task from God" Washington Post, United States - Sep 2, 2008

A Visit to Palin’s Church Newsweek - Sep 2, 2008

US troops in Iraq on 'task from God': Palin The Standard, Hong Kong - 10 hours ago

Elan26 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Your entire keep argument amounts to the church is notable because Palin is a member. This is directly in opposition to WP:NOTINHERITED. The church must be covered significantly in mulitple reliable 3rd party sources separately to this one congregant otherwise it fails the notability and verifiability policies and guidleines that have already been pointed out to you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED has not been applied to Presidential candidates. Their children , churches, pastors, neighborhoods, former houses, become notable by association with them. Madonna’s pastor and house of worship have pages. Surely Palin’s beliefs are more important.Elan26 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED is universal. Otherwise, I haven't seen specific mention of it applying to authors and therefore I'm notable (and yes I understand the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS irony of that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her place of worship is notable on its own.[7] GtstrickyTalk or C 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::: Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but, why the link to the Kabbalah Centre? Have you entered into the wrong AfD? Or were you trying to make some sort of point I'm unaware of? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I was in fact just being thick. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and look at three edits I just made to the page based on one article, today's SP story. 1) Palin was baptized here as a teenager. 2) she worshipped here for many years 3)the church on which the church building is located was renamed in noror of the former pastor. SWorking form today's news articles, similar, objective, well-sourced articles can be created for Wasilla Bible Church and all of her pastors who are indeed nsuddenly,notable, yes, notable because of her nomination. This is factual, significant information. There are pagges for churches attended regularly by most candidates.Elan26 (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Please go back and read the policy. Notability is not inherited. Just because she is notable doesn't make the church notable. Please stop with the circular argument. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've already addressed the significant coverage by reliable sources and have rewritten the article the reflect said sources. It's not perfect, but notability has been established for the church. The church clearly doesn't need the Palin angle to establish its notability. --Farix (Talk) 13:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we need to restore the Wasilla Bible Church article, which is also well-sourced and notable.Elan26 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
It still needs significant coverage from multiple sources for verifiability. And Deletion review is that a way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources. there are at least three good sources from the Anchorage Daily News about different events that the church has been involved in. --Farix (Talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ADN is one source. But, I grant you they are separate articles by the same paper. Maybe it's an interpretation problem from my side (or vice versa). Either way I'd rather see papers, magazines, etc beyond ADN discuss the subject in a significant manner. I haven't found anything yet. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mutilate articles, multiple sources. They just happen to be by the same publisher. However, WP:NOTE doesn't require multiple sources in the first place. Only significant coverage, and the articles on "Winter Rock Fest" and "Rally Point" are more then enough. --Farix (Talk) 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I still have to disagree on the multiple article=multiple source thing and I still prefer something significant from non-ADN source but, can we simply agree to disagree for now (or discuss multiple article/multiple source in a more general location)? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the church is involved with a non-notable concert/event does not make the church notable. The fact that a concert that attracts 1,000 kids gets coverage is more an indication of how little it takes to get coverage in Alaska than about true notability.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources I just added a description of the church form today's Wall Street Journal. There are many more, but I'm out of time. The press is all over this church. The problem with this discussion is that some of us believe that in the case of potential presidents, everything is relevant. Sometimes people are so important and their religious affiliation is so important to them that it merits coverage. Madonna's Place of Worship and her spiritial leader have pages.Elan26 (talk)Elan26
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply but her place of worship is notable on its own.[8] GtstrickyTalk or C 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bad comparison. Reading the Trinity United Church, it appears notable even without its association with Obama, in the context of its role with the history of Chicago. Further, the whole town of Wasilla has fewer people than Trinity has congregants. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this typical AFD for a typical church. It does seem that we are raising the bar unduly in this discussion.

[[9]] First United Methodist Church (Lufkin, Texas)Elan26 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

  • Keep, strongly. A major US national political candidate's membership confers notability on this local church, especially since she acknowledges that her religious beliefs inform her political beliefs. Nationwide attention has therefore been paid to this church, making it easily meet any notability guideline you care to mention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five Requests for Clarification on Wikipedia Policies and Standards summarized from numerous Palin related Wikipedia deletion discussion pages

( Five Requests are Questions by OP author of article being discussed on long question link below) EricDiesel (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK
  1. The 5 day period doesn't apply when the admin invokes WP:SNOW, which means that there is no point going through the motions for 5 days, because the debate is so firmly on one side that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of a different outcome.
  2. This isn't relevant to the debate. We just don't do WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
  3. The number depends on the status of the sources, and whether any of them are PRIMARILY about the church, rather than about something else, but mention the church.
  4. Could we have that again in English?
  5. can you provide examples?
Mayalld (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is all being addressed on his talk page where it belongs. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is not inherited. Regarding the tl;dr above, well...I don't envy the closing admin. But this church is not different than the thousands of others like it across the country (and perhaps the world)...99% of which do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is unlikely that the subject of this article will have any more notability than a passing news interest. News articles "about" this church are really about one of its members. Peacock (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the various edits on four articles are being examined for notability?

Numerous edits on the four deleted pages also deleted information including

1. the location and context where an agreed on notable anti Semite's made some of his most published controversial remarks about Jews,
2. The quotes relating to the etiology of various public policy positions and reasoning for them made by an elected governor, and voted on in response to this reasoning by 100 US Senators, including in the funding requests for he oil pipeline approved by the Christian God, and approved earmark requests, and other places. EricDiesel (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Keep arguments
  • A student of history interested in the common content of the hundreds of news articles and thousands of web pages regarding these four article titles should have an encyclopedia entry explaining the mass of news articles, collecting the quotations generating the news stories, and citing legitimate sources for further research.
  • The varoius quotes by various persons, both those agreed to be notable and not yet agreed to be notable, are not appropriate to be placed in a Sarah Palins article, since their relationship to the etiology of her ideas is only implied by the news articles. Yet the old quotes, having generated hundreds of news stories, both after and BEFORE Palin’s nomination, should be collected SOMEWHERE.
  • If these four articles are not deleted, given the rate of accumulation of information on them, they would likely all grown into a valuable encyclopedia resources for modern historians and political scientists researching related public policy reasoning. Isn’that one of the things making Wikipedia unique, being a nearly instantenous source of encyclopedic knowledge? EricDiesel (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP [2nd !vote struck] – This Information Does Not Belong on Sarah Palin Page, as suggested. - Information in this article does not belong on Sarah Palin Page, as suggested all over the place.
This would be grossly unfair to Sarah Palin. There are numerous suggestions here and elsewhere that information on these pages, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon, more properly belong on the Sarah Palin page.
The principal information is the quotes generating the news stories.
  • Delete. If the church was independently notable now it was also independenly notable a couple of weeks ago. That the article is only now being created is absolute evidence in my mind that the notability of Sarah Palin is the sole claim to notability of the church, and as others have pointed out, notability is not inherited. Notability is also not temporary, so bring this back for consideration when the election is done and dusted and there can be no claim of political motives; right now it looks like there is a massive political agenda here. Ros0709 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Wasilla Bible Church: This discussion seems to ahve become a WP:DelRev discussion of that article, which seems to have been the subject of a BAD FAITH AFD closure, perhaps for US party political reasons. That article should be restored and the AFD allowed to run its course. However the mechanism for that is to request a deltion review. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the closing admin would object to reopening although no one has asked. see User talk:Seicer GtstrickyTalk or C 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each article has to be individually considered in relation to WP policy, not other articles. See WP:WAX. Ros0709 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Governor of the state, and perhaps the VP of the United States is (or was) a member of this church, then this church is definitely notable, and the article should be kept. Dems on the move (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is that notability is not inherited. In this case the notability of a member of the congregation does not of itself confer any notability in the church itself. Ros0709 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That's why nobody has bothered to write an article about the church that Joe Biden attends. Obviously, Palin's membership in the church is notable, making this church notable, Just like Barack Obama's church is notable (Trinity United Church of Christ). Dems on the move (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this coatrack. There are no non-trivial independent sources primarily about this church, it's just a completely generic local church. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a) this really needed to go to review first, as is the case with many Pentecostalism-related articles, and b) coverage in the Christian media which confers notability may emerge in the near future. Likely a premature nomination. Ottre (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply a) This is a review. We are reviewing whether or not this should be deleted. b) Your statement that says that sources will come in the near-future is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, which makes that arguement false, don't assume things are going to happen in the future. Tavix (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just about every major news organization is reporting on this church, automatically making the claim of "non-notablity" ludicrous in the extreme. In fact, this particular article for deletion should be strongly considered as an instructional prototype of those articles for deletion which are merit-less on their face. J.R. Hercules (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What?!?! Just about every major news organization is a huge exaggeration! There has only been a couple of Alaskan newspapers that report that Sarah Palin went there. Notability is not established so this church is seriously not notable. Tavix (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Are the Associated Press, USA Today, ABC News, and the Wall Street Journal what you consider to be "a couple of Alaskan newspapers"? J.R. Hercules (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TheFarix (Talk | contribs) (4,760 bytes) (Given the four Anchorage Daily News articles about the church's activites that have nothing to do with Palin, notability has been established and this template in inappropriate.)
* I am new, so I don’t know how to find the referent of where the parenthetical comment finally appears.
Does this mean the debate to KEEP is over?EricDiesel (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should every church which has been mentioned three or more times in a 70,000 circulation newspaper have a Wikipedia article? Is that the objective criterion for inclusion when it comes to churches? patsw (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. But a better argument to KEEP is that the thousands of media stories about this church quote one of its pastors and his views, and the quotes have nothing to do with Palin, so the quotes do not belong on Palin's pages. If this article is deleted, there would be thousands of news articles about what this church's poastor is quoted as saying, and there would be no place to enter this information on Wikipedia, without guilting by association Palin with the remarks. Wasilla Bible Church should similarly get its own page back, as it is in the Israeli press for remarks made there by the notorious anti Semite David Brickner. I am the Original Poster of this article, my first on Wikipedia, and the origninal Delete recommendation was based on there being only the three ANchorage Daily stories, and one Huffington Post, and this page got created. Since then there have been hundreds more reliable sources published, most of which have content about things which should not be on Palin's article as she did not make the controversial statements.EricDiesel (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, read WP:NOT#NEWS. Let's look at the so-called thousands of media stories on this church:
  • If they appear now, it is solely because of this Church's connection to Palin.
  • The media scrutiny iteself of this church, motivated by their desire to do a gotcha on Palin is irrelevant to the Wikipedia.
  • Palin's religious beliefs, if they become significant to her biographical article, are going to appear there without undue weight
  • The Wikipedia doesn't do extrapolations. Eric, we're not going to predict that apart from Palin, there's going to be something this church is going to do which will make it more significant than any other community church which has several mentions in a 70,000 circulation newspaper without a Wikipedia article. patsw (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Notability is NOT inheritied. The ONLY reason this was created was to try to captialize on Sarah Palin's nomination to promote the church. She is no longer a member I beleive. This article will never be edited again after 3 months. SALT. mboverload@ 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would like to emphasize two points:
  1. I've lost count of how many editors have stated that anything of interest regarding the church rightly belongs in the Sarah Palin article. That argument is a complete non-starter: there is simply no room in that already-very-long article for this material, much of which has nothing to do with Palin in any event.
  2. The contention that the church's connection with Sarah Palin must be completely excluded from the notability equation is taking things to an extreme, and therefore grossly unfair. Before her selection as McCain's running-mate the church probably had borderline notability, but surely the heightened level of media scrutiny must count for something. Suppose we were to insist on excluding the most notable aspect(s) of other churches (or other types of organizations, etc.) -- How many of those articles would survive AFD??
Cgingold (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on satisfaction of WP:N due to multiple articles found so far in ADN as discussed above, predating VP nomination of Palin. "Multiple sources" does not require "multiple newspapers," just multiple stories about different aspects of the subject in reliabe and independent sources. Different jourmals, newspapers, books and magazines are clearly preferred, but so far we are only seeing sources which are readily available via online search, which does not search the text of all newspapers in the state. In addition to sources which appear to show notability of the church independent of the membership of Palin, there are major national sources which go on to discuss the church membership in light of Palin's nomination and her attendance there from the time she was a teenager until 2002. This does not mean that any mention of the church as a part of the spiritual background of Palin is inevitably a WP:COATRACK. Any edits which violate guidelines or policies can be corrected by those fearing them placing the article on a watchlist, as I plan to do. There is no inherent non-notability of a church just because a notable person attends it, Edison (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Are you suggesting that the threshold for inclusion in the Wikipedia is three appearances in a 70,000 circulation newspaper -- that any or every church crossing that threshold of verifiable appearances in reliable sources could have a Wikipedia article? If so, then Where are all the small church articles? Thousands of churches would have already satisfied that criterion if there were interest on the part of an editor.
Comment An article on Wasilla Assembly of God practically shouts WP:COATRACK. How can anyone with experience in the Wikipedia not assess that such an article would be very short but have a lot of edits with the edit summary "rm -- this is not the place to discuss Sarah Palin"?
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Absent a single congregant's recent spotlight, this place has no particular notability. If local coverage of every other NN house of worship meets WP:N and we're going to keep all of them, then... No, that would be more of a mess than all the Warhammer articles, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wasilla Bible Church and Ed Kalnins (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Kalnins) have been restored and changed to redirects to Sarah Palin. Is this a compromise option suitable for this article too?
    Comment "Wasilla Assembly of God" has 561 news hits at Google News Archive.[10]. Many of these relate to the Palin candidacy, but just as for schools, having notable alumni is an argument for notability, rather than a reason for deletion. The Wall Street Journal,"Palin's Faith Is Seen In Church Upbringing" [11] is the first hit. It has substantial coverage of Wasilla Assembly of God and its pastor, Ed Kalnins. It says Palin was baptized at the church while in junior high school, and attended until 2002. Few churches have such extensive coverage in such a reliable and independent source as the WSJ, which cannot plausibly be called a Democratic or leftist source. If this article is deleted, then the McCain campaign's efforts to hide Palin's pentecostal faith background, as covered in the Associated Press article[12] "Pentecostalism obscured in Palin biography" needs to be presented in some other article, such as one on the McCain-Palin campaign.The Associated Press carried a story "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'" [13] with substantial coverage of the Wasilla Assembly of God as Palin told its graduating School of Ministry students that "the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a 'task that is from God.'" and how "God's will" had to get a gas pipeline built. The AP article says she still attends conferences and meetings at the church. Anyone in the U.S. is allowed to "religion surf" and not commit to a particular faith, so she can certainly say her faith is "non-denominational," but that does not remove the substantial coverage of the Wasilla Assembly of God in major news media which would easily satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG for any other religious congregation. The former proposed but rejected notability guideline for religious congregations, WP:CONG represents the views of a number of Wikipedia editors, and says in one of its guidelines "The congregation has, or has had, notable members or worshippers, for whom the particular church was formative in their work or their life. These people must also be notable under WP:BIO and should ideally have their own article, and their involvement in the church. The church's involvement in their lives should not be trivial, and should be significantly discussed in their biography." The inclusion of Wasilla Assembly of God in the Palin article is a separate editing question,regarding a presently protected article, but it seems undisputed that she was baptized there and attended until 6 years ago, and made important policy speeches there. Edison (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very BAD idea to redirect any of these to Palins. It was bad idea to direct Wasilla Bible Church to Palin, too. Wasilla Bible Church is all over the Israeli Media for having the notorious David Brikner speak. Palins may not even have known this. It should not redirect to Sarah Palin as this would imply a guilt by association of Palin for Brickner's antiSemitism. It should have its own page unDeleted. Similarly, Wasilla Assembly of GOd must have its own page. It has videotaped examples of small church style speaking in tongues, and videotapes of very controversial remarks by one of its pastors, Ed Kalnins, who is not its current pastor. This would guilt by associate Palins with the controversial remarks, quoted all over the major media. The place to put information abuot the quotes is on this page, not Palin's page, which again would guilt by associate her with his bizarre remarks. By the way, this is a KEEP argument for this article. Why such intense Delete pressure on this small church, which is notable for being featured in different articles in the Anchorage Daily in 2005, 2006, and 2007, AFTER Palin left this church in 2002, and BEFORE she was governor. EricDiesel (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Voted merge above) -- Except that Sara Palin received believers baptism there and its former pastor (who has no article) took part in her inauguration as governor, I see little of notability in the article. The history section merely recounts Sara Palin's association with the church. The rest of it merely recounts the church program (very ordinary) and its doctrines, which are typical of Assemblies of God, a mainline Pentecostal denomination. This indicates that the church is essentially non-notable (see also WP:CHURCH). The truth is that most churches are NN; as a Christian, I would love it if this were not the case. This means that the present article cannot survive as an article. However there is an alternative to deleting, which is to merge a brief summary to Wasilla, Alaska#Church, which is at presnet a mere list. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small, non-notable church with one past notable member. This is not a vote for redirect. This is a vote for delete. --Crunch (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously because of the Palin connection. I know that notability isn't inherited, but this isn't inheritance. Palin is obviously notable, her views, her religious views, and the communities or churches in which those views developed are also notable for the influence (or its lack!) they had upon her. That's different to mere (and inadequate) "notability by association". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously because of the Palin connection, and its the only thing remotely connected. Random Google searches don't work, you need articles ABOUT the church not articles that mention the church as "the church palin visits" You can talk about the influence it may have on Palin elsewhere... Jacina (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue about quality though, not existence - improve, not delete. I really want to read an article (surely this is the core of our "notability" concept anyway?) that explains to me the teachings Palin has been exposed to and how widely held they are by others. This article might not yet cover this with its content, but this is something I'd like to see covered and this is the place in article namespace where I think it ought to be located. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this is the article to do that with. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly interesting, but how homogeneous are all the Assemblies of God? They state themselves that pacifism in particular is a matter for individuals and individual churches. Where is Palin's church's position on that important issue? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has had independent coverage in the media. Watch out for coatracking though. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many editors who have commented for deletion have been dismissing the Anchorage Daily News articles on the church, effectively using a combination of WP:LOCALFAME and WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. However, neither WP:NOTE or WP:RS mentions anything about circulation of the sources. Instead, they set the requirements that the coverage by a source independent of the subject, that the source is reliable, and be the coverage be significant (i.e. more than trivial but may be less than exclusive). The Anchorage Daily News is independent of the church, is a reliable source, and combined provided significant, non-trivial coverage of the church's activates. In addition, the size or potential size of the congregation is not a factor in notability. A church with a congregation of 40 can still be included in Wikipedia if it can pass the general notability criteria. At the same time, a church with a congregation of 1,000 can fail the notability criteria and be considered non-notable, albeit unlikely. Moreover, just as Palin's connections to the church does not automatically make the church notable, it also does not automatically make the church non-notable. Also, WP:COATRACK does not trump WP:NOTE. WP:COATRACK is something to watch out for, but it is a valid reason to delete an article on a subject that would normally pass WP:NOTE on its own. --Farix (Talk) 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant "but it isn't a valid reason to delete an article on a subject that would normally pass WP:NOTE on its own". Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I don't think this satisfies the notability requirements on its own. Unless the minister there does something to make the church famous on its own, I don't see why it would be notable. McCain's church, after all, has no article as far as I can tell. Coemgenus 20:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Riley should be added to the Religion section o:f the Sarah Palin article. Associated Press reports “Her pastor for most of her time at Wasilla Assembly of God, Paul Riley”. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCeGgS4vbVt6qpxTpahCgGn_R-dQD92VOKVG0
  • 1. Paul Riley is NOT notable, as he only appears in the media talking about Palin as far as I know, and notability cannot be inherited. If he becomes controversial, or is the subject of media stories for some other notable thing, only then he should only then get an article.
  • 2. The “controversial figure” Ed Kalnins IS notable, since the content of the many media articles in which he is featured regards his controversial remarks. These remarks should NOT be on the Palin page, as there is no information I am aware of that directly links Palin to the controversial remarks. E.G., USA Today reports “The Rev. Ed Kalnins had no way of knowing he'd be a controversial figure in the 2008 presidential race.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-palin-pastor_N.htm . So Kalnins should have his own article in which his controversial remarks can be documented, as well as his bio, and any information about him that can be sourced.
  • 3. Larry Kroon IS notable. He is in many major media stories linking him as far back as 2004 to the highly controversial Jews for Jesus and David Brickner. The Atlantic Monthly magazine reports this Jews For Jesus pamphlet (PDF) from 2004 that reveals more details about Palin's pastor.” This is a year 2004 association, long predating Palin’s rise from mayor. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palins-pastor-a.html Numerous other news articles report on Kroon, e.g. The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-alaska-palin_monsep01,0,3504940.story . The 2004 stuff is unrelated to Palin, so Kroon should have his own article. It is unclear Palin knew Kroon would be speaking when she recently sat through his sermon.

EricDiesel (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Er Kroon and Kalnin don't deserve articles either. Both again are primarily notable through their affiliation to Palin. Most of the articles that I looked at for the two of them on Google News were where they were quoted about their thoughts concerning Sarah Palin. Nothing about the two of them from reliable sources (Yes, there were a few blogs/opinion pieces/perspectives, but nothing that is considered reliable.) Also there are a number of people who have affiliations to controversial groups. How many ministers have connections to the KKK but aren't notable enough for an article? How many ministers have called somebody who votes for X a sinner don't have articles? Just because an article mentions a person does not make that person notable---even an isolated article here or there does not make them notable.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep solely because of the Associated Press and other sources that focus on the church. If media wish to focus on the church because of Palin, that's their right, but we must not find a church notable simply because of a former member: otherwise I could write an article about the church where I grew up simply because a U.S. representative was once a member there. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn Church. X Marx the Spot (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn church. The main defender of this page is arguing that there are 412 (now 611) articles that mention this church on Google News. What he is failing to mention are a few of the other pertinent facts concerning these articles. Most are merely mentioning the church in passing as a reference that Sarah Palin attended the church until about 6 years ago---thus, most are not about the church, but about Sarah. There are also a number of cases where these articles are duplicates of each other. Eg, one news story is caught by several sources and repeated over and over again. Third, a number of the occurences (even in Google News) are opinion pieces/blogs.... thus, not considered reliable sources. When I looked at the articles on the first page of GoogleNews, I found only one article about Wasilla. It was a blog about how the churches website was brought down by too much internet traffic. The church is not generating all of this activity because of the church itself, but rather because of it's affiliation with Palin.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that the so-called "blog" that you refer to is actually a straight news article (not an opinion piece) by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper, and should be regarded as an RS. Cgingold (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then why is the word BLOG prominently placed at the top of Jake Tupper's straight news article and the website is: http://BLOGS.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/website-with-sp.html???---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See footnote 5 of WP:V about blogs. "Blogs" from reputable news agencies can be acceptable sources despite the label. I'm against keeping this article per WP:COATRACK and WP:NOT#NEWS, but this should be a non-issue. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept that rationale. ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this church delivers a certain type of message through blogs again does not make it notable. There are thousands of churches throughout the USA that give the same or simular messages and it in no way makes them notable. The only reason this church has found favor here is because of Palin. This church has not even reached the popularity of Brownsville Assembly in Florida. I continue to support a speedy deletion. Canyouhearmenow 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tiny church in the middle of nowhere that is blogged on by thousands as far away as Pakistan and Iran is notable for that reason alone. The delete arguments were made before the national and international press started reporting on the content of sermons given when Palin was not even there (although you could not find this out by getting info from Wikipedia since the content of the sermons causing the controversy is instantly deleted as soon as it is put in the article) claiming Coatrack, when it can not be a Coatrack for Palin, since she was not even there for the controversial sermons reported in the media). EricDiesel (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 16,400 Google hits for "Wasilla Assembly of God" in quotations. If you delete this now, be prepared to reargue this.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate/Compromise proposal

[edit]

Given the divide here between those who favor keeping the article and those who favor deletion, I would like to suggest a solution that I think might garner support from both sides. Rather than keeping this as a stand-alone article, how about creating a new article, Churches in Wasilla, Alaska, using the material in this article along with material from Wasilla Bible Church as sections, along with sections for any other churches in Wasilla. It seems to me that the subject is undeniably notable, regardless of whether or not any of the individual churches are believed to meet notability. Peterkingiron suggested above that this article be merged into the section on churches in the article on Wasilla, Alaska, but adding this much material would clearly overload that article, so it would make more sense to split it off as I'm proposing. The new article would also make a much better redirect target for these church articles than any of the other options. Cgingold (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original poster and agree with User:Cgingold, but the content of the sermons that is causing the controversy should be allowed. The Jews for Jesus sermon at the other Palin church under the Wasilla article keeps getting deleted from that claiming coatrack. But Palin has nothing to do with it, and international Jewish antidefamation groups were outraged about the church before Palin was nominated. This coatrack argument is being abused to keep content out of anywhere. Why is everyone claiming coatrack not doing the same over at the United Trinity Curch article which has a section header "Controversy" site if they are arguing with NPOV?]] EricDiesel (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. Grouping otherwise very different "organisations" (churches representing different religions) into one article not only sounds to me like a bad idea, it probably also fails WP:NOTTRAVEL. My earlier suggestion was that the article should follow the example of Wasilla Bible Church and redirect to Sarah Palin. There was objection to that (which I understand) but that article now directs to Wasilla, Alaska, which seems more appropriate. Cgingold's concern was that would then cause the Wasilla article to get overloaded but I think the point being made by a number of contributors here is that most of the content in this article does not belong in WP at all. Ros0709 (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, you're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I honestly don't see why it's a "bad idea", as long as each church has its own section. Second, I really can't see how WP:NOTTRAVEL would apply to this proposed article -- it's nowhere near being any sort of "travel guide". With regard to the idea of adding this material to the Wasilla, Alaska article, I don't think it would be considered appropriate to add more than a couple of sentences about each church to that section, out of understandable concern for overloading it -- and that would certainly not be adequate space to deal with the subjects in sufficient depth. Lastly, and most importantly: given the level of national and international interest in Wasilla's churches, I think it is incumbent upon Wikipedia to address that subject in a forthright and balanced way. I would really hate to see us take the easy way out, avoiding the subject by simply excluding the information from our pages. Cgingold (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news agency and notability is not temporary. There is no reason why it has to have this in it at all at present when there are plenty of other resources available. The best way to ensure a more balanced approach would be to wait until the dust settles and consider the issue in retrospect, when the conflicts of interest which are evident here are less pronounced.
  • Comment. It seems clear to me that however it may be dressed up this article is being used entirely for political capital and it is disingeneous to suggest otherwise. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; I am amazed that this debate, which merely fans the flames, is being allowed to continue so long. OK, we get it - Sarah Palin has some religeous views that some (myself included) may find bizarre. Can you stop mud-slinging now, or at least do it somewhere more appropriate? Ros0709 (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but precisely where is the supposed "mud-slinging"? With all due respect, Ros0709, that's a load of horse manure. This article should not have more than a couple of fairly brief mentions of Governor Palin -- she certainly should not be the main focus by any means. In fact, by devoting sufficient space to each church, the likely result would be quite the opposite of what you and a lot of other editors are assuming, because readers would also learn that in many respects these churches are pretty much like other churches. Just so you know, I detest scurrilous attacks regardless of the politics. I have personally removed such material from Wiki articles on figures of both the right and the left. And last night I chewed someone out in no uncertain terms for sending around a completely bogus email accusing Sarah Palin of trying to ban a humungous list of books from the Wasilla library. So don't presume there's some sort of political agenda at work here. It seems to me the real political agenda is on the part of certain editors who would like to see Wikipedia cleansed of any reference to this subject. Cgingold (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is straying dangerously close to WP:ATTACK territory so I suggest we calm down a little. The problem is, as I believe is obvious, this is a massive target for political point scoring and if you look at the article history you'll see it has been used in this way: strongly link Palin to the church and then show its pastors to be extreme and dangerous. The version I checked just now is cleaned up considerably. It's probably too much to ask, but is there a version of the article which people can agree is acceptable, and can agree to have fully protected against further editing until after the election? Ros0709 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ros0709. This is not supposed to be an issue of how long we can keep this debate going. There are several things that can happen here. We can add it to the Palin article as a place she attended for worship, we can put it in and article about the state. The bottom line is this subject. We have to decide if this subject is notable enough to have its own page. That's the bottom line here. Until Palin, this church did not recieve any notability worthy of a page. Let's just redirect to Sarah Palin's page. That would solve this issue IMO. Canyouhearmenow 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained why this suggestion cannot possibly be regarded as a solution because that article is so packed full of info on every subject that there's no room for more than a passing mention, so Canyouhearmenow, and would you please address that issue directly? It seems pretty clear to me that the real point of doing that is precisely to limit the amount of information provided about these churches. Cgingold (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further agreement with Ros0709. However, I suggest we redirect to Wasilla, Alaska. That article already has a section on churches that mentions Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church, and that they were both attended by Palin. The bible church link already redirects to the town. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be a prodigious amount of Wiki-lawyering aimed at trying to remove these articles, and if they can't be removed, trying to make certain that the articles do not cover these churches' teachings.

Yes, a couple months ago these churches may not have been notable enough. Yes, it's Sarah Palin who's responsible for much of the attention being paid to them. All of this is irrelevant. Ford's Theater was a minor local venue until it became the focus of a great deal of attention due to matters entirely irrelevant to its productions. It now meets all relevant notability criteria. And so do these churches. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that it could be alluded to in Palin's bio isn't satisfactory to me. Numerous other biographical articles have sections split out to separate articles, do I need to give examples? The fact she is a VP contender warrants review of this church which is reputed to be a little outside the norm. Besides, if Palin's husband warrants his own article, I think her religious background does as well -- it's only one of the major sources of controversy surrounding this particular VP candidate, that is noteworthy. --Biturica (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you appear to be suggesting would actually be a very different sort of thing, Biturica -- i.e. an article focusing specifically on Palin's religious background and how it relates to her political positions. That might be a worthwhile article in its own right -- but it's really a separate issue from what we're arguing about here. Cgingold (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, users will expect to find an article on this church, and its absence will only serve to embarrass Wikipedia. This is also a clear case of "no consensus defaults to Keep." Any possible claim that there is some COATRACK or BLP violation is countered by the fact that Palin left the church in 2002 because it was too "extreme". (here's the NYT source on that) That means that Palin, unlike Obama, got out while the getting was good. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The church has received extensive coverage in the media, and the reliable and verifiable sources included in the article satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, of course. "Only notable due to Palin" still means "notable". --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of press on their beliefs and speakers. We66er (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge, per User:Cgingold's proposal above. Churches are certainly not inherently notable, but many churches are notable. We do tend to have articles about the larger, more influential, oldest, etc., local churches in America. People's wider interest in this church was of course piqued by the association with Sarah Palin, and that introduces issues of WP:NOT#NEWS and coatrack (which is a commentary on WP:NPOV). But it is still a church in its own right, with a long history (especially for Alaska), important in its community. I think we have to separate the two issues: (1) is the church itself notable, all considering (that meanss including both its independent notability and its being a chapter in Palin's life), and (2) can we cover the church without giving undue influence to the controversy involving Palin, and its use to criticize or question Palin. I think the answer is yes, and yes. That means if we keep the article people have to be careful to avoid turning it into a hit piece. But we face this all the time in other articles, the need to cover charged subjects yet stay neutral. Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Press reported another one. Wasilla Assembly of God has announced an upcoming "convention" to pray for God to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals. This is still another international news story about the controversial positions of this church. Current events historians or scholars studying the church, and there appears to be a lot of people like this now, need an encyclopedia article where all of the controversial positions of the church can be read about. This information is not appropriate for an article on Wasilla, nor in an article about Sarah Palin. One would expect to find it under an article named Wasilla Bible Church in a section like "Controversial Church Positions Public Issues". EricDiesel (talk) 20:14, 8 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 03:54, 9 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_Assembly_of_God&oldid=1140154802"