Deletion of Wasilla Assembly of God

Comment: but closely watch for coatracking and POV pushing. The two Anchorage Daily News articles on the church's community service projects are more then enough to establish the church's |notability. The article is a target for coatracking, POV pushing, and general vandalism, but that is not a legitimate reason to delete. Let's not let the recent actions of two edit warriors cloud our judgment. I also found several other articles about the church's community service and outreach in the Anchorage Daily News archives while looking for links to the existing citations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Non-notable church that appears to fail not only , but OTINHERITED and/or is a target for ... just because someone who is notable attends the church, does not make the church itself notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: until it becomes |notable on its own. It does seem that the media is digging http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/website-with-sp.html hard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per , #NEWS, and INHERITED. 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:NOT||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church and especially concerns about . The church is not notable outside of its association with Palin and, at best, warrants a mention on her page, not its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: Wasilla Bible Church: This discussion seems to ahve become a elRev 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D)

Comment: Take away the oatracking and this is a NN church which mainly gets non-trivial attention for its past association with Sarah Palin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: per ,  etc etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:COAT)

Comment: E, , #NEWS,   Even people voting ''Keep'' argue against their position by mentioning Palin.  See http://www.google.com/search?sa=N&tab=nw&q=%22Wasilla%20Assembly%20of%20God%22%20-palin and note the -palin to get an idea of the lack of significance of this Church apart from Palin's membership
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NOT||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: E, , and #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NOT)

Comment: Many editors who have commented for deletion have been dismissing the Anchorage Daily News articles on the church, effectively using a combination of  and . However, neither  or  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,  does not trump .  is something to watch out for, but it is a valid reason to delete an article on a subject that would normally pass  on its own
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOCALFAME||WP:NOTBIGENOUGH||WP:NOTE||WP:RS||WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTE||WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTE)

Comment: nn church, |coatrack article, notability is not inhereted.  Church is reported on exclusively in the context of Sarah Palin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Comment: has had independent coverage in the media. Watch out for |coatracking though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: per , article is just a way to smear a political candidate by showing what a "crazy and out-of-the-mainstream" chuch she attends
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Subject receives a passing reference in a handful of very recent news articles (#NEWS) but doesn't stand up on its own when examined for notability (). 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 (). 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 (). As the subject does not hold claim to any notability independent of other more notable subjects, it could potentially be speedily deleted (#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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:COATRACK||WP:GOOGLE||WP:CSD)