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 The result was delete per notability rationales. Furthermore, EricDiesel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been recreating these articles under various titles, and this is a continuation of that. It has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping with any clear consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

Amended rationale: Restored page histories and performed a redirect to Sarah Palin. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kroon[edit]

Larry Kroon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article per WP:ONEVENT Mayalld (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not American, so I may be slightly out of touch here, but this feels like a case of WP:NOT#NEWS. Yes, he's the pastor of Sarah Palin, but I don't understand how that makes him notable. I wouldn't be averse to a merge and redirect to Sarah Palin, as any notability he has is a direct result of his link to her, but that wouldn't be my primary choice here. Then again, I'm a Brit, so what do I know about American politics. Many thanks, Gazimoff 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Any potential redirect should point instead to Wasilla Bible Church --T-rex 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. There is a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church. Keeper ǀ 76 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEPThe delete arguments would be more convincing if someone would explain why they have not proposed the Trinity United Church of Christ or Jeremiah Wright 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 the support she will draw from fellow evangelical Christians, her church and her pastor beocme notable.Elan26 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

• Comment is there any possibility that we could actually try to work within Wikipedia policy, instead of Elan26 policy. Notability isn't transferable, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a REALLY bad keep argument Mayalld (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (Edit conflict) Note - With respect, I'd like to point you in the direction of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Essentially, just because a similar article exists doesn't create an argument for keeping the one being discussed. It's also used to avoid precedent being formed - each article is discussed and weighed on its own merits against the various content policies, rather than against other articles or deletion discussions. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So AfD Trinity United Church of Christ and I'll support it, assuming that absent the presidential campaign nonsense it has no encyclopedic value. I generally don't start AfD's, and no editor is obligated to do so, so my or anyone else's failure to do so is not an appropriate basis for impeaching the credibility of my vote. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now The Jeremiah Wright situation isn't simply an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison in that it does demonstrate a useful matter: this sort of individual can easily become notable enough due to the surrounding controversy. Kroon arguably meets notability as is, and so it is completely reasonable to keep the article now given that he seems to be increasing in the national spotlight. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not sufficiently notable on his own, WP:BLP1E. Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the admin that felt this met the criteria for an A7 deletion, and speedy deleted it. I don't see any improvements to the article or article sourcing, and so of course, still say delete. Per everything that Wikipedia is not. Keeper ǀ 76 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. He's a random pastor at a random church that just happens to have a famous congregant. There is no independent notability. Resolute 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The entire first section falls under WP:COATRACK, and the subject of the article fails general notability concerns (WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTINHERITED, depending on how you look at it)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I took out the WP:COATRACK, but someone will undoubtedly try to reinsert it. If you take out the Palin attacks, there's nothing encyclopedic left in the article. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went through and wikified all of the references. Other then the ones regarding his daughter's illness, everything was from either a blog or other unreliable source. I will have to agree that this is an attempt to WP:COATRACK controversy onto Sarah Palin's VP candidacy. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - ignore the Palin issue, and we have the long time pastor of a very influential church in the region. This should meet our notability threshold even if just barely. --T-rex 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any sources that show this church to be "influential" beyond Palin's attendance? I haven't found any yet...Keeper ǀ 76 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article isn't about the church, but the pastor. While the church may be notable, that notability is not inherited by the pastor. --Farix (Talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A church's notability is inherited by its pastor. What do you think has made the church notable in the first place? --T-rex 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bloomberg, Newsweek, and Time Magazine were making it more notable, and has nothing to do with the pastor (yet the church is up for afd too). Synergy 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A church's notability is inherited by its pastor" Really? Where does it say that in any policy or guideline? Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This is ludicrous. Maybe the church is influential in Wasilla. There are less than 9,000 people in Wasilla. Notablility isn't transferable, coatrack, etc etc. I'm feeling like a broken record. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Sarah Palin is entitled to her faith, but it doesn't confer notability on the pastor who leads the church she attends. Almost a candidate for CSD except notability is asserted - but since it is not established - delete is the right answer.  Frank  |  talk  23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent notability. rootology (C)(T) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Pileon delete (which means this is per everyone but stray keeps). Synergy 01:03, 4 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.