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. I think the only issue that is clear here is that nonone wants to delete the content from wikipedia. whether it should be s astandlone article or merged is an editing decision thatd oes not require an admin to enforce and I'm not seeing any clear outcome from this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Sarah Palin[edit]

The useful content of this article can be easily merged into the main article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not "A complete exposition of all possible details." and not for News reports - saying who else was at a press conference and quoting everyone's opinions (Iowa Congressman Steve King?) is unencyclopedic. The coverage is not in proportion - she announced her resignation, gave her reasons and did it. That can be summarized well in the main article. Hekerui (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event should of course be in WP, but in her article, not its own. Para 4 of WP:NOTNEWS applies --Saalstin (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Sarah Palin Doesn't merit an article of its own. Ray^Talk 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sarah Palin, selectively. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't need an article of its own. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Her resignation is a significant political moment with an extraordinary amount of coverage. The content has also become too large to fit into the Sarah Palin resignation section.--The lorax (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the latest chapter in her life. Even "Resignation of Richard Nixon" doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's because it's explained in Watergate scandal.--The lorax (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which demonstrates that it's preferable to describe events within the context of an existing article, rather than to spin them out. Wikipedia is not the news, although I'll concede that trying to find Wikinews is like trying to spot a newspaper machine on the side of a highway. Part of the problem is the design of the site. Wikinews, like Wiktionary, is not directly accessible from the side bar; to get to it from this page, one clicks on "Main Page", then scrolls down to "sister projects", then clicks on there and logs in. As such, there is a tendency to add days worth of news into an encyclopedia article and then to create a new encyclopedia article because the existing one is now "too long". But that's an editing problem, not an excuse for making a separate article. Six weeks from now, the resignation will rate nothing more than a few sentences in the article about Sarah Palin. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree if this was some other mundane resignation, however, this is a highly scrutinized, unusual maybe even unprecedented event.--The lorax (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not too relevant to AfD, but it's not unprecedented. Palin is the second sitting Governor in Alaska's short history as a state to resign while in office. A lot of our politicians up here like to pull slippery moves where they quit to move on to something else, and get to had-pick who fills their job, so that in the next election they run as an incumbent. (i.e. Palin's predecessor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to his vacant seat in the Senate when he became governor) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Remerging would defeat the purpose of splitting it out of the main article: the latter is already too long. Having a separate article allows us to avoid the morton's fork between overburdening the main article and throwing out worthwhile content. I'm baffled as to which policy user:Hekerui has in mind as prohibiting a standalone article. His content issues (which includes the WP:UNDUE concern) can be resolved through WP:SOFIXIT. If we're talking notability, WP:GNG seems capacious enough to include a standalone article for Palin's resignation, and WP:EVENT failed to attract support. So what's the problem here?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (what exactly does the merger do, every day?)with Sarah Palin per nom and Mandsford. Main article is appropriately sized, and about 1/3 references, which is really good, and the resignation information fits into the article as a biography of the person. side articles should be about things like her list of elected positions, or maybe media appearences (lists). im not sure what events in her life would qualify for their own article, but this doesnt. if she wrote a book, yes. starting a new political party, yes. running for president, maybe, if she got selected as the nominee of her party. election to presidency, then the party starts. articles galore. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge isn't really an option here. The main article covers the resignation already, and none of the additional content in the subarticle really belongs in the main article. Quite frankly, I put a lot of this material into the subarticle; I wouldn't have added it to the main article, and if it's put into the article, I will propose its removal. Merge just isn't a good fit. The choice is really between deletion or not.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum, move for speedy close Nominator clearly states that their desired outcome is a merger, which should be discussed at the article talk page, not at AFD. This isn't mergers for discussion. Suggest nominator withdraw and tag article with ((mergeto|Sarah Palin)). Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, maybe it's too late for that Even though I still think this is not an appropriate forum, we've got several users now saying "delete" so I guess it has become an AfD, even if it didn't begin as one. I scanned the archives of Talk:Sarah Palin, and it seems this article was spun off without seeking consensus for such a move there. As the resignation has taken place, and the world didn't end as a result, there is little that more to say, the event is over. Therefore, I'm going with merge back where it came from, with a reminder to the "splitter" that Palin related articles are on probation and such a large split should have been thoroughly discussed before the new page was created. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content on her quitting, and the events surrounding her quitting (ie the ethical challenges) can be split up and moved into the main Sarah Palin article and to the governorship article. No need for a separate article on just the motivation for the quitting, the quitting speeches, and the reaction to the quitting. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge with ~~Para Salin' or Sexy Sorceress of Evil~~ Sarah Palin. --TitanOne (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bung into Sarah Palin one way or another per nom and other distinguished eds above, namely Saalstin, Ray, TerriersFan, NeutralHomer, Mandsford, Mercurywoodrose, Beeblebrox, TharsHammer, TitanOne (who means delete (the separate article) and merge, no?). Writegeist (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I abstain -68.185.89.209 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Simon Dodd's reasoning, although Simon should have cited Wikipedia:Summary style, which calls for the use of such daughter articles to present more detail than is appropriate for the main article. JamesMLane t c 08:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has good information but inadequate as an encyclopedic entry. With very little exception, it is her reasons for resignation and not the context of the resignation. I, for one, believe that the article can be rescued; I shall offer what I can.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Sarah Palin. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The soap opera continues. Not worthy of a separate article. Radiopathy •talk• 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not really sure what there is even to say about the resignation. She resigned. Aprock (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The delete arguments make much more sense to me than the keeps. News of the resignation of a local politician whose greatest moment was losing out on being Vice-President of her nation would not receive an article in any other country in the world and what actually happened belongs in Sarah Palin. Please approach this logically in the context of what has happened. --candle•wicke 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that we're heading to "no consensus", and I won't lose sleep if this is kept up for another month or two. Logically, people who want to keep up with the latest about this story will check this article. Once its no longer news, once Rush stops talking about it, the interest will fade. Will support fade for this newsy article the next time its nominated? You betcha! Mandsford (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yebbut WP:NOTNEWS. Either way, I'm all for comedy in encyclopedias. Writegeist (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the decision to be made here is not whether to delete or keep the page but whether it is more appropriate to present the information it contains in a stand alone article or as part of a parent article. This is a purely editorial decision that should not be made at AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main page per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is not an individually notable subject. If it's too long to fit into the parent page, it should be trimmed down, not given a standalone article. The Reaction section, for example, is largely trivial and non-encyclopedic. — Rankiri (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much valid content to fit in the main article, so best to have a side article here. Dream Focus 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an Alaskan, I think this is inherently notable and too large an issue to be merged into the Sarah Palin article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't an Alaskan edition of WP. Writegeist (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you can feel free to add this article there, so long as you attribute Wikipedia! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's a more accessible place for it than the one I had in mind. ;~) Writegeist (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, deleting much of the content as speculative and/or triva. This isn't Palinopedia, where every single step in her life gets a seperate article.
Delete/merge per Radiopathy and shorten "material" to 3 sentences :). --Tom (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her article and make it short. --L I C 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely one of the most unusual events of her career, and one of the most unusual moments in American gubernatorial history. Шизомби (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and summarize in main Palin article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we shouldn't be echoing a whole bunch of commentators or the most obscure, "who cares" details of Palin's speech. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Fox News. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sarah Palin TomCat4680 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination wants a merger and so has come to the wrong place. The topic has great notability and so should not be deleted per our deletion policy, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per WP:ONEEVENT. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI- per the GFDL, we can't merge and delete, if we merge, we can't delete, because we have to keep the history.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of use to the appropriate Sarah Palin article. Umbralcorax (talk)
Delete Frankly, this article goes into needless detail that would be culled out of the main article if a merger occurred. The resignation of a governor is not that big of a deal, especially when the article doesn't have much of anything to say about it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is of a piece with Early political career of Sarah Palin, Electoral history of Sarah Palin, Governorship of Sarah Palin, Political positions of Sarah Palin, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would argue that most of those articles are excessive and ought to be merged into the main article where appropriate. Talk about recentism and the culture of celebrity. We do not need articles detailing every phase of Sarah Palin's life; in particular, the article on her career in city politics and the redundant article on her electoral history are unnecessary. Let's take a step back here and look at the bigger picture. Sarah Palin is not a very important figure in United States history. If she gets elected President or Vice President someday, maybe some of these articles would be appropriate. But for God's sake, she lost. And not only that, but the guy she lost to for the Vice Presidency (Joe Biden) doesn't have these types of sub-articles about him. And neither do the other 49 governors in the United States (I should say fifty, since Sean Parnell has now succeeded Palin). I encourage those of you voting "keep" to re-examine this article through a broader lens. (And don't forget WP:NOTNEWS.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:Electoral history of American politicians has many articles, some going back half a century, and Category:Political positions of American politicians has many too (and both exist for Biden). Including either of these reference-y kinds of subarticles in main BLPs tends to drive up article size without illuminating the subject much. The straight biographical subarticles ("Early life of ...", "Some officeship of ...") I tend to avoid (that's why you don't see them for Biden) because of very low readership and duplicate content maintenance problems. But the Palin editors have already made the decision to go down that road. As for recentism, sure, yes. But WP is rife with recentism everywhere in every subject domain; like it or not, it comes with the territory and it ain't gonna go away. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Wikipedia had been around for half a century... Anyway, as I mentioned above, there was not any consensus to split this particular content off the main article in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that far too much emphasis is being placed on Sarah Palin. Just because recentism is rampant doesn't make it correct. At the very least Early political career of Sarah Palin and Resignation of Sarah Palin ought to be deleted. Let's not overinflate Sarah Palin's importance in U.S. history. That said, I respect your arguments in favor of keeping the political positions and electoral history articles. But for the others, I still point to WP:NOTNEWS. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sarah Palin: the WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS arguments say it all. This is just a passing news event of temporary interest, but of little long-term significance, and should rightly be covered as a subsection of the Sarah Palin article rather than having this kind of in-depth coverage. We're not exactly talking Death of Michael Jackson here. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen the Early political career of Sarah Palin, I'd say that one is even worse than this one in terms of containing truly excessive amounts of detail, and think it should be brought to AFD as well. Robofish (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that is pretty bad, and it sets a terrible precedent. Before Palin became McCain's running mate, there weren't any in-depth articles on mayors of Wasilla, and that was not a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Event is important enough to merit it's own article. A merge would delete much, if not all, pertinent information.Tlatseg (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The abundance of media coverage satisfies the notability requirements for a separate article.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sarah Palin. Encyclopedias are supposed to summarize, not serve as a dumping ground for every detail. 96.10.153.29 (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia is unlike any encyclopedia you could possibly imagine. This encyclopedia has a featured article on a fictional character that appeared in a few episodes of one season of a TV series. Given that, in-depth coverage of the surprising and inscrutable resignation of a major current American political figure seems quite worthy. 04:16, 4 August 2009 (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.