Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Kalnins


 * 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, 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 &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}}
 * Amended rationale: Restored page histories and performed a redirect to Sarah Palin. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed Kalnins

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm worried this is a BLP issue. There is so much controversy surrounding Palin and those close to her, and this article is almost entirely unsourced. I'm tempted to just speedy the entire thing under G10, but because of the controversy I thought I'd better bring it here. Basically, it's unsourced and I don't honestly think it can be anything other than a WP:COAT.  L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message ] 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete one rather partisan source does not evidence any notability.--Troikoalogo (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any assertion or evidence of notability that is not linked to another person, and as I understand it, it's a basic principle that people don't gain notability from their personal or familial relationships; as remarked above, this also might be a coatrack for attempts to discredit the politician in question.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Excellent deletion rationale totally on the mark. I wouldn't oppose a CSD A7. The author also wrote an attack article same subject different title. No assertion of notability and from a google search complicated by different Ed Kalnins notablity couldn't be proven. Simply being a famous person's pastor doesn't make one notable either as Accounting4Taste pointed out.  —  Ѕandahl   &#9829;  00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact that article was deleted and recreated twice before I deleted it and salted the final time. The fact that the OP posted it after being warned multiple times makes it difficult to agf.  L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message ] 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree 100% with nom. I actually considered speedy-ing it, but I decided against it. J.delanoy gabs adds  01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm sure we could verify that this person exists, sure, but notable? No evidence suggests that. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GRBerry 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not delete if there's an article about Jeremiah Wright controversy, concerning the polemical declarations of Obama longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, then there should be an article about Ed Kalnins controversy, concerning the polemical declarations of Sarah Palin longtime pastor, Ed Kalnins. -Hgfernan (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please understand that saying that an article should be kept or deleted simply because others of a similar nature have or haven't been in the past is according to our guidelines an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Do you have a reason based in policy/guidelines to keep the article? Perhaps some proof of notability or  verifiability that we have not yet found? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jasynnash2, thanks for the information. But i think i'm not partial when i state that certainly the two items can be easily proved by simply googling the names of the main involved in the controversy. While most references are for blogs or periodicals committed to contrary political visions, it is possible to find many respectable, non-committed periodicals, like Huffington Post, that published the same stories. Certainly the big newspapers are not into the stories, but that's a known pattern for news: they come from the country to the capital. All the best, --Hgfernan (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

KEEP and IMPROVE I am working on the improvement. Within the last hour, ABC News is reporting that the church had removed Kalin's sermons from its web site. This is notable, as per Walkerma. Note also that the article on Palin's other pastor, Larry Kroon was deleted in a Speefdy Delete despite a hangon This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. See:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 3Elan26 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26
 * Delete I recollect the AFD for Otis Moss III. There, I was able to demonstrate notability by completely rewriting the article, largely from sources predating the current presidential campaign and putting the campaign stuff in reasonable weight.  Here, I can not find any sources that are about Kalnins and predate the campaign.  Thus I don't think a biography of is possible.  GRBerry 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I personally don't like the way the media try to find controversy, but we at WP can't ignore it just because it's awkward, or we would also have Jeremiah Wright at AfD. There is a danger in saying, "This is controversial and WP:COAT so we can't write anything about it" and then saying "Because we can't write about this, it is a stub with no references" and therefore it should be deleted.  Based on that, we'd never get articles written about Monica Lewinsky.  Let's remember, people aren't Googling Ed Kalnins because they want to write a high school essay about his childhood.  I added a fairly neutral sentence to the Kalnins article, with a citation (from the Huffington Post) indicating that Ed Kalnins has come into the spotlight recently. I think that if Ed Kalnins importance fades away, and Palin isn't elected to VP, then maybe I'd support deletion.  But for now, we need to have this article in place, in case the news story really takes off.  Walkerma (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no it is not. An administrator can still decide to speedily delete a page if the hang on rationale is not satisfactory: adding a hang on template is not a guarantee that your page will not be deleted unless you can prove using that hang-on that the article doesn't meet deletion criteria or that you will improve it very quickly.  L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message ] 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but in this case the article was sourced to a long list of major newspapers and magazines, and had articles that focused on Kroon before Palin ran for Governor.Elan26 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * Delete. Association with a notable figure does not in itself confer notability. Notability should be long-term, not today's news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ros0709 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete notability is not inherited by association, and so far as I can tell this guy has had his 5 minutes of media attention for a single event. Mayalld (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's rationale. Could easily be a G10 (negatively sourced BLP) - all the sources, as far as I can tell, are blogs and unreliable.  Keeper    76  20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G10. The sources all seem to be unreliable. Kelly  hi! 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post is (according to Wikipedia) the most linked-to blog (Technorati), the most most visited news weblog (Alexa) and the "most influential blog in the world" (Guardian) - this is a liberal blog, but it is not a source to be dismissed lightly. Just appearing as a main subject on that blog makes someone notable. Walkerma (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a big blog, but its still a blog. As soon as they develop a journalist, NPOV stance, they'll be accepted as a source for Wikipedian purposes.  They are a blog, with a declared bias, with very little oversight and virtually no fact-checking, therefore unreliable.  Keeper    76  22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete No indication of notability, sourcing consists of one heavily POV blog. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP The article is now sourced by the
 * CHICAGO TRIBUNE and the
 * New Jersey TIMES OF TRENTON.EricDiesel (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP There is more discussion of the Palin pages on the Notability policy page.
 * Notability is not transferable, but being an acknowledged teacher from which notable ideas come transfers notability. Palin’s quotes on the religeous basis of the Iraq War being identical in theological reasoning to that taught at her church or school and of those of her teacher or pastor makes her teacher notable as the progenitor or that reaoning. EricDiesel (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent notability. rootology ( C )( T ) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as only having inherited notability. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.