Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kempling

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Kempling

High school teacher suspended for being anti-gay. Does not appear to be notable per guideline for inclusion of people.
brenneman^{L} 04:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or barring that merge. Was at the centre of a court case that gained national attention. I believe he is notable. CJCurrie 04:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to change my vote to merge -- I was confusing Kempling with Mary Polak re: the "national case" situation. CJCurrie 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC) In light of recent comments, I'm going back to my initial call. CJCurrie 03:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Ardenn 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article seems to be about the incident more than the person. Makes me more inclined to keep it. Fagstein 06:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per numerous precedents set. Like

CJCurrie says. Otherwise keep, relatively notable court case in Canada. Luigizanasi 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. --kingboyk 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Relevant guideline from WP:BIO is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events " Richard 07:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this is an article about a relevant person in British Columbia. This was a major story for quite some time. :: Colin Keigher 09:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge as per Richard. NoIdeaNick 09:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He's about to tell the world about his situation through the UN. Deet 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to easily meet WP:BIO. Wstaffor 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm still not seeing a single shred of evidence in the article that this person meets the guideline. Where's the coverage by an independant souce? Mentions in reputable media? Testimony of wikipedia editors is not verification and since this is a discussion and not a vote it would be good to have some evidence of notability presented. - brenneman^{L} 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Supreme Court rejects teacher's appeal over homosexuality issue", Calgary Herald, 29 January 2006; "Quesnel teacher suspended for gay views running for Christian Heritage Party", Canadian Press, 12 December 2005; "Free speech needs to be for everybody", Calgary Herald, 5 November 2005 (feature editorial); "Civil liberties group tells court teacher `must constrain his public utterances'", Canadian Press, 24 April 2005; "A hard lesson in free speech: B.C. teacher taken to task for airing same-sex marriage views", Calgary Herald, 10 April 2005, "B.C. Civil Liberties Association intervenes in case of anti-homosexual teacher", Canadian Press, 31 August 2004. Should I continue? CJCurrie 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Is there some reason that you were holding these back, eh? Better yet why aren't these references in the article? Looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability it says in bold letters "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So, yes, please do continue.
    brenneman^{L} 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    I wasn't holding back -- I had no involvement in creating this article, and I wasn't even aware it existed until you put it on afd. When you posed the question, I did a quick newspaper search, which yielded the above results (and others). CJCurrie 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Quite obviously noteworthy. Silensor 06:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough: 14.000 google hits. Jens Nielsen 06:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is noteworthy but needs to be edited to included referneces and to make it seem less slanted. I have modified the language to make it seem less biased. Some one needs to add in some good references and citations Edward Brown.

If the article survives the afd process, as the primary author, I'll take responsibility for addressing all the concerns regarding references. Having said that, Browned, is there someone who wouldn't consider this to be a pro-homosexual agenda (the link was in the article but deleted by Brenneman)? That page starts with the terms "social justice activists" and "homophobia and heterosexism action group" to describe their approach. I still intend to keep all relevant facts in the revised article. Pointing out the activism of a group that identifies iteself as activist, is not an "attack", especially when it relates directly to the topic at hand. Deet 00:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that the term "pro-homosexual agenda" is itself slanted and POV. Anyway, this isn't relevant to the afd; please address the matter on the article talk page. CJCurrie 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Activists don't have agendas? Anyways, I take your point on discussing this in the other section.Deet 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: All who are familiar with this case should know that the Kempling case has enormous ramifications. Certainly the College of Education saw it as important or they would not have pursued the matter so far. The BC Teachers' Federation saw it important in that even though they were against Kempling's statements they gave him financial backing at a higher court level than, I understand, they were required to. Practically everything in this article is neutral, and it would only take one or two minor ones to make it totally so. The facts of this case, including the decision which effectively bars teachers from independent public discussion of education unless they are politically in line with the correct thinking, is enormous. User: Ted Hewlett 21 April 2006
• Article is now updated Deet 01:28, 23 April 2006 (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.