Talk:Parodies of Sarah Palin

Porn film
In this edit, I removed a paragraph about a porn film said to be in the making.

Porn films come out by the squillion. This one hasn't even come out yet. "News" of it caused some giggling at wonkette.com and so forth, but is hardly, well, news.

Further, I've never heard of a porn film that was a parody. Hamfisted, inept satire (before the clothes come off and the organs come out), maybe; parody, no. Maybe I'm wrong here; maybe it will really be a parody. Let's see this claim written up somewhere credible before readding to this article what's now little more than a recycled press release advertising this product. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph about Who's Nailin' Paylin? is verified by reliable sources. It is being billed as a parody. There is no legitimate reason to remove it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read some excerpts from what is, allegedly, the script, and it seems obvious that it is, indeed, a political parody. (I'm not sure where the excerpts are located on the Web at this moment since the discussion forum thread where I read them was deleted after a couple people posted links to pornographic material.) WhipperSnapper (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The producer may call it parody. Can you name a single porn film that's a parody? I've never heard of one. Could it be that this is unprecedented, the very first porn parody? Or could it instead be that it's no more a parody of Palin than porn flicks with titles more or less reminiscent of Hollywood flicks are parodies of those? Meanwhile, the sources adduced for the talk about this are ho-hum.

But amazingly, this non-phenomenon has its own article. Well, since it does have its own article, why is much of the content of that article duplicated here? Why not just link to it: "Hustler has announced that it will release a porn flick, Who's Nailin' Paylin? that 'parodies' Palin" (or similar)?

Meanwhile, Sara Benincasa's vblogs are written up by Newsweek (admittedly its website only) and ABC News. And they actually exist; talk of them doesn't merely depend, directly or indirectly, on press releases. (Plus they're hilarious, but I don't suppose that this should be an issue.) And they're not mentioned in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut is a parody of the true story. Much of Tina Fey's parody is covered elsewhere too, as is the comedy central quote and name-generator. Perhaps you just don't like the article. Maybe try AfD. I agree that the vblogs should be included, since they're covered by a reliable source. I'd not know about them. Feel free to add it. Or I'll go look for 'em. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bobbitt: odd that you should mention him; I've just been reading Paulos A Mathematician Reads the Newspapers (or similar title), and he turned up in the last ten pages. Or rather his "tip" does. The story seems banal and depressing; how could it be parodied?


 * Curiously I haven't yet seen any of this stuff by Tina Fey, though I've read about it repeatedly. I'll take a look sometime soon. Meanwhile, you must see the vblogs.


 * If I'd noticed the AfD of the porn film vaporware, I'd have voted delete. I didn't, so there it is. Meanwhile, it's clear that Palin is widely parodied. This is my observation from all that I've seen; however, it's not just OR/OS but also a claim explicitly made in various news articles. While I may argue about this or that paragraph in this article, I certainly wouldn't want to have the article deleted: it's on an important (and amusing) subject. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It could reasonably be argued that Flesh Gordon is a porn film that is also a parody (itself, not surprisingly, becoming fodder for further parody). Pinkville (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Benincasa
I've added a paragragh re Sara Benincasa's vblog. She's pretty funny. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to read that you like her stuff. The last time I looked, one of the set (no. 8? 9?) was missing from YouTube but it is on 236 and it's one of the best. And you've added material about this very well. Good work. -- Hoary (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator page backup
If the "generator" were ever to disappear, it (or rather the page announcing it) would still be available for linking to. Yes, I fed the URL to WebCite:


 * Harrington, David. Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator. Poli Tsk Tsk Tsk. 2008-10-25. URL:http://politsk.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah_13.html. Accessed: 2008-10-25. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5bpIRAjR7)

Hoary (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Gina Gershon
I'm surprised Gershon's parodies, which have been featured on CNN, aren't included, so I have added them (with sources, of course). 23skidoo (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * They certainly belong in the article. Thank you.


 * You've indeed provided sources in a sense, but it would be better if you could also add links to third-party sources that comment on or at least mention the appearances. (See what's been done for the name generator.) In normal circumstances this might be overkill, but the tedious history of the article on Palin herself shows that some editors will make extraordinary efforts to interpret WP policies and guidelines as mandating removal of any reference to her that's less than reverent. (Wikilawyering at its most mindboggling.) The references certainly exist and if you don't get to this first and if time permits, I'll hunt them up and add them myself. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there were some but I didn't have time to look for them, though I was aware of a CNN news report (which was how I learned about them). I assume the new sources are your's - thanks. I was pretty confident in the material not being removed for lack of additional sources because Funny or Die is a notable website run by and featuring notable contributions (established by Will Farrell, clips by Ron Howard, etc), and Gershon herself is a notable actress. But you're right - the more sources, the merrier. 23skidoo (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"split refs"
Why? -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they format better in the refernce list, instead of being packed together into a paragraph size/type list. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's odd: I thought the exact reverse. -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why merge?
A Nonpartisan Message From Governor Sarah Palin & Senator Hillary Clinton was rated as a good article. Why was it merged into this article? It now completely dominates this article. I see no discussion on either article's talk page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I rather agree with you, Evb-wiki. No argument from me if you revert the addition and the conversion of the article to a redirect.


 * If you're going to dump an article -- and "dump" was the term used in the edit summary by the dumper -- into another, you might at least do it with care and grace. As well of course as the agreement of others.


 * Please don't take my subsequent tinkering as evidence of my approval of the dumping. I was just trying to make the result less horrible. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC) tinkering 05:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that there was an AfD of A Nonpartisan Message which "resulted in merge". But reading that discussion, I'm not sure the consensus was to merge into this article. Some were suggesting that all the SNL skits be merged together but not with the other parodies. And the AfD may have been closed a day early. Anyway, I just can't understand how this happened to a GA. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rightly or wrongly, the decision was "The result was redirect to Parodies of Sarah Palin". I can't get worked up about it. If anybody can, DRV is the place to go, but in the meantime we'll want to tinker with other bits of this article.


 * As for the mystery of how this happened, I'd guess at two factors. First, the article is terribly overblown. I mean, this TV show may be noteworthy but it was no big deal. (Cf Colbert's televised star turn at the White House correspondents' club dinner in 2006, which was.) Secondly, as you'll see in Talk:Sarah Palin, a faction of editors seems very intent on deemphasizing or even better eliminating any coverage of any aspect of Palin that doesn't obviously contribute to a humdrum hagiography for a future Prez.


 * But I think we agree that the result is a mess. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarkozy thing
Of course the l'affaire Sarkozy isn't a parody. (Though it's probably parody fodder.) It doesn't belong here. If the references to it keep multiplying, it might conceivably justify its own article. More likely, it should be part of some other article. Meanwhile, let it incubate here. (Wherever it ends up, surely the more humdrum of the references, and those from less impressive sources, can be pruned.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And pruned they have been. But if anyone ever wants the full, prepruned list, here it is:              -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Ripa
I've added the Regis and Kelly parody, given the notability of the show, the fact once again we have a well-known actress doing the part, and it was covered by CNN (although I'm concerned that only a video link could be found to the news coverage; hopefully it won't deprecate). Just as an aside I watched the clip they played on CNN and she actually did almost as good a job as Fey. Anyway: notable show, notable actress, so I think it's justified. I'm listing it under "Other" because there may be other minor parodies worth noting that don't really justify their own header. 23skidoo (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Julie Brown
Less than 24 hours after the info added about the Julie Brown parodies it was removed by someone claiming that it was a "spam hoax". A simple visit to www.juliebrown.com would make it very clear that it's not either of those things. CouplandForever (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither YouTube nor Julie Brown's blog is a reliable source. It was removed because there has not been any third-party coverage and, therefore, doesn't meet the notability standards. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It may very well not be notable. But as far as reliability is concerned, the artist's own web site is certainly reliable, and it's hard for me to imagine why a youtube video would not be reliable; it would be hard to forge a video of a notable artist doing a parody that she didn't actually perform.  Occam's razor would suggest that if such a video exists we should believe that it's genuine unless the artist denies having made it.  None of this, however, goes to the question of notability, on which I defer to you. -- Zsero (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Julie Brown is a successful comedienne, actress and recording artist whose career dates back to the late 1970's. By nature of the fact that she is Julie Brown, a famous and successful perform for 30+ years, makes it inherently notable. CouplandForever (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On reliability, Zsero has it right. On notability, I'd agree with Evb-wiki if this were an AfD on an article "Ex-Beauty Queen Has Got a Gun". However, nobody has (I hope) suggested creating such an article or anything like it. Instead, we're discussing a short mention within a longer article. It would certainly be better if one could cite some attention paid by the conventional, dead-trees mass media to this song (or any other attempt by Brown at parodying or satirizing Palin); however, I think the song has got sufficient attention from bloggish political sites I've actually heard of (HuffPo, Kos) for it to merit a short mention within both this article and Brown's own -- it's not as if contentious material were being sourced to these sites. &para; At the same time, I'd add that I'd be sorry if this article as a whole ended up as little more than a list. More important would be treatment of the significance of the parodies on the appeal of either McCain/Palin or just Palin. However, I fear that all we'll have to go on for some time is the more or less informed speculation of scholars of political science, social psychologists, and newspaper columnists. Hoary (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I compromised and put a one-sentence mention of the song parody in the section entitled Immediate comic reaction. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Doonesbury
I've removed the mention of Doonesbury because it was not sufficiently related and was unsourced orig research. Also, it was stuck up front when it did not even run until Oct 25, so it was out of chron order. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also compromised on this, although it is a bit more of a stretch. I moved it to be in chron order. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Benincasa's foil
Zsero zapped a minor new addition; I have reverted and fixed the addition.

We don't need to know this fact, but then of course we also don't need to know anything about the parodies of Palin.

However, we've agreed that a short and straightforward treatment of Benincasa's parody "vlogs" is worthwhile. If you look at almost any of these, you'll see that they involve two women, not one. The obvious center of attention is the one who's obviously parodying Palin. That's Benincasa. The other woman is generally a foil for the first one, sometimes more. Saez is always identified. (Particularly in the last, blood-drenched episode.) I find these vlogs pretty funny and have many of them on my hard drive, but I'm not going to go through all of them to check that all do identify "Heath-Bar"; since they were obviously made in a rush and most don't even have visible numbering (let alone dating), I'd guess that some don't. And even if they do all identify her, some readers may find the reminder useful: "Wasn't there one series in which 'Palin' was with some assistant? Which series was that? Does the real Palin have such an assistant?")

I don't immediately have a "reliable source" to back up the claim that it's Saez who plays "Heath-Bar", but I think that a demand for this would be pedantic. (See the discussion of Julie Brown above.) As for my parenthetical note that "Heath-Bar" is a fiction, this is unashamed original synthesis (if there were such a versatile constant companion, the mass media would have been all over her) and original research (googling for "Heath-Bar" without Saez or Benincasa brings no hits). WP's policies mandating reliable sources and outlawing original synthesis/research are admirable, but let's keep a sense of balance and not fetishize them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

South Park
South Park viewers are probably aware of the political parody of Sarah Palin on last week's episode entitled About Last Night... (South Park). Sarah Palin is depicted as an eloquent Briton who pretends to be a naive American from Alaska in order to steal the Hope Diamond during the post-election euphoria.

I was waiting for the press to write up the episode before mentioning it here. According to LexisNexis, it's already received some attention in The New York Post, MSNBC, and other newspapers to justify its inclusion in this article, I think. Before I start to add anything, is anyone opposed to including the South Park parody? J Readings (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been away on business, so I haven't had a chance to add anything here or elsewhere. Apologies if anyone wondered what happened. Presumably, no one objects to the South Park entry. J Readings (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Bias?
The scope of this article and the per se definition and reach of its topic is subject to objection that it presents and advances a point of view about the subject matter. Its bias is subtle but it is pervasive. The subject is also not one that is suitable for an encyclopedic entry. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find an article setting forth "Parodies of Geraldine Ferraro," or any other presidential ticket candidate (not even Dan Quayle). We would be hard pressed to be able to open up Encyclopedia Britannica to an entry on paradies of any political candidate! To the extent that the article is designed to make the point that its subject was more the target of parodies than other national ticket candidates, its selective criteria are not the objective criteria that are recognized to constitute suitable subjects for encyclopedic entries. Put another way, would we not object to Wikipedia articles on "The Questionable Personal Affiliations of Barack Obama" or "Extramarital Affairs by Bill Clinton." They would be rightly shot down as being partisan hack jobs, and this one is not far behind. This article should be deleted. Carlos_X (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like more an AfD argument than a POV issue. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right. This appears to be akin to a point of view (POV) fork.  In the example given under that guideline, a writer who really wants to advance his "personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation" creates an article entitled "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.  Similarly here, there is an attempt to circumvent the objections that would surely come if we were to include the statement that "Sarah Palin is a joke" in an article about Sarah Palin by attempting to catalogue the jokes about Sarah Palin in a ready-made article.  While allowing that POV forks are grounds for deletion, the guideline states that "There is no consensus whether a 'Criticism of .... ' article is always a POV fork," which is why I did not mark this as a AfD candidate.  The guideline suggests that such articles can be salvaged if "rebuttal" information is included.  But, what would such information be?  That "50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong"?? Carlos_X (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You've caused the article to announce "This article or section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." But you don't seem to want to check the neutrality of what it says; rather, you seem concerned about the PoV inherent in its very existence. Indeed, you plainly state above This article should be deleted. If you don't think it should exist, please take it to AfD. If you think it may exist but are concerned about its content, please state your concerns here. If you think its existence raises wider questions that should be addressed elsewhere, please raise them elsewhere and, here, post a link to this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It makes little sense to troll (perhaps not the right word) for reactions on the neutrality of this article's sections without offering specific examples of verifiable and reliable sources commenting on the specific parodies themselves. If they exist, and they were being excluded, I could understand right away the POV objection. In any case, it might make sense if we list some verifiable sources that specifically address these parodies. I know for a fact that Sarah Palin enjoyed the Tina Fey parody. Perhaps we should start citing reactions to these parodies in a separate "Reactions" section? That could be informative, if done right. J Readings (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted the neutrality tag because (a) I'm not sure it's a slam dunk AfD case and given that it may be a close call, (b) I did not want to resort to the most drastic measure without first allowing for some way to salvage the work folks have put in. But, given the reaction, I will change to AfD. Carlos_X (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this notable? The article lists 7 parodies.  There are at least that many parodies of Bill Clinton, but not an article entitled "Parodies of Bill Clinton."  (Phil Hartman, Darrill Hammond, Robert Smigel's Syncro-Vox gag on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Dan Castellaneta on "The Simpsons," Tim Watters's impersonations in movies ("Naked Gun 33-1/3") on television("The Tonight Show") and at various public appearances, Will Sasso on MadTV,John Travolta on Primary Colors, etc., etc., etc.) Carlos_X (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A useful essay on this topic that most people generally respect is WP:OTHERSTUFF. A general principle to avoid is "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." On Bill Clinton, who knows? Someone someday could very well make an article entitled "Parodies of Bill Clinton", too. J Readings (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's imagine that we come up with thirty irrefutable, well-sourced, and arguably notable parodies of X. (This X may be Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin, or anybody else.) I'm not sure that this by itself would call for an article on "Parodies of X". Arguably, the "subject" would be a non-subject, akin to "Birds with pink feet", or "Camera lenses that are manually focused clockwise from infinity", or "Department stores whose carrier bags are striped". And if lack of construct validity doesn't trouble you and you're instead happy with mere lists, consider the slippery slope (yes, yes, a sign of intellectual poverty in argument, but consider it anyway): If we allow an article on parodies of any politician who's been widely parodied, perhaps the next step is "Single-frame political cartoons of X", where X is any of ten thousand politicians, and notability of the examples is argued from their appearance in national "quality" newspapers. &para; What's special about parodies (in the loose sense) of Palin is that press coverage was not only of individual examples/series but of the number of these examples/series and the way in which Palin seemed to invite parody. The article cites some of this latter coverage. &para; You wonder about articles about parodies of other veep candidates. Yes, a number of them were widely parodied and I should guess that the would-be creator of one or more of these articles wouldn't have to work through newspaper archives to find evidence of recognition of wide parodying but instead could find this in an academic or other serious book about the election in question. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Baby name generator refs
The baby name generator came with a huge and desperate number of references. I've just now trimmed a few away; here they are for future reference:

(NB I've purposely inserted a space within the long Wonkette URL in order to avoid the need for sideways scrolling.) Hoary (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Article probation
This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation‎ for details. Thanks - Kelly  hi! 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now lifted.   Will Beback    talk    23:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Porn flick redux
I know the thread is above, but that is from awhile ago, few months. Would it be alright to restart it here? Maybe more some of the comments from above? Maybe just keep it above? Thoughts? Thank you, --Tom 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ps, I moved the most recent discussion here, hope nobody minds....--Tom 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it absurd that something so vulgar and unworthy of note made it in to wikipedia, in a wp:BLP no less. Can anyone explain why this pornography is in any way notable?  Even beyond the notability question, the sources for this section are marginal at best, especially, again, in an article about a living person.  I am going to remove this whole section to kick off the edit cycle. Bonewah (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bonewah. First, something being "so vulgar" is not a reason for exclusion. Being non-notable would however be a reason for exclusion. Poor or improper sourcing would be another. Anyways, just my 2 cents, cheers, --Tom 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Normally i would agree with you, as far as vulgarity is concerned, however, BLP's are different. Consider these lines from the blp page:

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, "


 * Also:

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."


 * I think it is clear here that when dealing with a living person, a substantially higher standard must be used. Bonewah (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about parodies of Palin. Arguably, each entry violates BLP, if you read it broadly. The paragraph about Who's Nailin' Paylin? is verified by reliable sources. It is being billed as a parody. There is no legitimate reason to remove it. Please read the discussion above. See also the AfD re notability. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of my biggest beefs with WP. That deletion looks like about 6-6 which is no consensus. Shouldn't there be consensus for inclusion rather than the other way around? Anyways, --Tom 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom, while I agree that the consensus burden dictated the results of the Nailin' Paylin AfD, there was a recognition that the sources were reliable. Also, many of the delete !votes were based on WP:CRYSTALBALL, because the discussion was during the flick's pre-production. I imagine there would be a much different discussion if it occurred today. And, of course consensus can change. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that "parodies of Palin" absolves us of the responsibilities in BLP just because of the "parodies of" section. Look at the first line i quoted above, it says any wikipedia page, not just ones that are titled only with a person's name.
 * As for verifiability, we have The Raw Story, not exactly a high quality source itself, but the article only mentions that the movie would be legal. Next up we have AVN, again, not a high quality source for political news as i think its a magazine for the porn industry.  Also, this link is dead.  Next source up for examination is one that points to TMZ.com.  This looks like a weblog to me and a far cry from reliable.  I have no idea what "Patterson, 2008, Under the Skin" is... no link, no isbn number, no indication whatever that this is a reliable source.  The evening standard might qualify as a RS, but who cares, the article only mentions this porn in passing while discussing "Other distasteful material".  The last link is just more Grhamm Norton, this time in video format.
 * Again I would ask that you direct your attention to wp:blp. The section on sourcing starts out with this:

"Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully."
 * and not far into it:

"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above)."
 * everything about BLP sourcing screams use only high quality sources and none of the sources here are even close.
 * Finally, I read both the AfD and Who's Nailin' Paylin?'s discussion page and found no compelling notability argument. So much so, in fact, that I will likely re-nominate Who's Nailin' Paylin? for deletion some time in the future. Bonewah (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The crux of BLP is verifiablity not casting bad light. Nevertheless, none of the parodies included in this article say anything bad about Gov. Palin, although they each emphasize and make fun of specific characteristics and ideosyncrocies. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP is not merely verifiability repackaged. Everything about BLP says use care and discretion when dealing with living people.  Look at this line "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."  Note that it does not say "as long as its sourced, dont worry about a thing" because that is not the sense of what BLP is all about.  And nothing in any of your responses says anything about notability, why is this piece of smut relevant at all?
 * Further, I think if your going to cite verifiability as a reason to keep this material, then you should address my verifiability concerns above, because I think the section could, and should, be removed on the basis of poor sourcing alone. Bonewah (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The main article, Who's Nailin' Paylin?, has a plethora of reliable sources. As the section contained in this article is merely a summary, it only provides a few. Please explain how an article (or section of an article) about a verifiably real film that is clearly not actually about Sarah Palin (it even uses a different spelling of character's name) violates BLP. Feel free to seek consensus to have it removed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been explaining why this section violates BLP, but ill be happy to recap. Who's Nailin' Paylin? is not notable.  Nothing about this film makes it more noteworthy than the thousands of other porn films that have clever titles.  This is especially egregious in a BLP, which this article is.  The section has poor sources, and really so does Who's Nailin' Paylin?, and so should be removed, again, especially in a BLP.  Finally, BLP directs us both implicitly and explicitly to set a high standard and including this film simply does not do that.
 * BLP is clear about how to deal with this situation as well. "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who commits the edit; this is especially true for edits regarding living persons." and also "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" So im not going to seek consensus to remove the material, im just going to remove it, then we can get consensus together about who was right. Bonewah (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe BLP applies, and I believe the flick in question is notable and its article is adequately sourced. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You havent even tried to argue your point, let alone address my concerns. Bonewah (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're not paying attention. I've pointed to the previous discussion and the AfD of the flick's main article to show that the section at issue here is properly sourced and notable. I have pointed out the the flick is not about Sarah Palin and the text at issue is not about her either. You are misapplying blp. This has been in the article since October 2008, even though previously challenged. Now, consensus can change, so please seek a new consensus rather than removing it just because you don't like it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this article is not a BLP or subject to BLP rules? Bonewah (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also be helpful if you would say what arguments from the AfD you find compelling. Bonewah (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I sense all sorts of confusions here.

First, is the flick significant in any way? I rather doubt it, other perhaps than significance for the porn industry. As for its significance to the porn industry, I can't start to judge. If somebody well-informed believes that the flick is of no significance at all, then that person should send the article on it to AfD.

Secondly, is the flick significant to Palin? It might be if it were a parody. Is it a parody? Let's put that question aside for a minute....

What's this article supposed to be about? It begins: Sarah Palin became a subject of parody, satire and derision, all in bold. That suggests that the article is about parody, satire and derision. Is this a poor way to start an article that's about parodies, or is the title a simplification (excusable or otherwise) for an article about satire and derision as well as parody?

Whatever this article is about, does this porn film pertain to it?

My own hunches are that:


 * 1) The flick is unlikely to be a parody, in that acted parody requires acting, while porn "actors" are notoriously awful at acting (they are instead a particular kind of athlete) and certainly not good enough at acting for effective parody. But it might be some very broad, no-brow satire.
 * 2) Whatever you happen to think of Palin and the US hard right (and, if you don't like them, whether you think they deserve all the ridicule they get), this flick is obviously a cynical attempt to make money off a face and name that are in the news, and its own existence is a piece of non-news that merits oblivion. Any discussion of it creates a buzz and a buzz is needed for unusual sales; coverage of this flick by Wikipedia is effectively (if not intentionally) advertising for it.

So I'd be inclined to pull it, though not for any reason concerning Palin. Offhand I can't come up with a policy to back this up, however. Hoary (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are really two questions: Should the Who's Nailin' Paylin? article exist? And does the flick qualify (or deserve) to be mentioned here? The first can be answered by another AfD of that article, which I would welcome. (Of course, the BLP issue would be better addressed through the AfD also.) I wouild !vote to keep, if only because its notability is evidenced by the number of reliable sources supporting the article. The second question is more difficult. If it is notable, is the flick a parody of Sarah Palin? I'd say even a bad parody is a parody. Despite my lack of any talent whatsoever, I could parody something or someone. We could disagree on the quality or success of my attempt, but it would still be a parody. I would !vote for inclusion, if it's found to be notable. It is more of a parody than some of the other entries. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the flick a parody of Palin? I'd have to agree with Evb-wiki that it is. William McGonagall was a mere poetaster, poor fellow, but in Evb-wiki's sense he was a poet too. He merits and gets a longish article, and he's uncontroversially in Category:Scottish poets. However, if there were an article on Scottish poetry (now merely a redirect), should he be written up there? I think not, as he's merely a diversion. So I'm still not convinced that the flick (even if significant to either the porn industry or to the rightwing columnist industry) should be written up in this article. Incidentally, if I may return to my charge that the general inability of porn "actors" to act (as well of course as the inability of scenario-writers to write) makes it unlikely that this is a parody as I'd normally understand the term, I should add that the hugely praised performance by Fey struck me as rather wooden and hobbled by dreary writing, while Gershon was yet worse. Perhaps Benincasa was too sharp (or just too good) for the teevee. -- Hoary (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Benincasa's parody was subtle, even if her sarcasm was not. all of the others were hackneyed, trite, even cliche by comparison. And, of course, Scottish poetry is a much broader (and in need of summary/triage for presentation) than Parodies of Sarah Palin. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a legitimate parody, they we should be able to find multiple reliable sources that say so. The sources for Who's Nailin' Paylin? are largely trade mags for the porn industry or websites that are most likely owned by Hustler (such as hustlerworld.com).  I hasten to add that the standard for notability here is significant independent coverage saying that this is a notably parody, not independent coverage saying that this is notable porn, after all, this article is about parodies of Sarah Palin, not porn per se.
 * Further, I do firmly believe that this article is, at a minimum, subject to some of the rules in wp:BLP as it is in essence, about a living person. If this whole article were just a subsection of Sarah Palin then BLP would clearly apply, I Dont see why splitting the article off really changes that. I propose we seek a third opinion on the question of "does BLP apply here?"
 * Id like to take this opportunity to once again appeal to everyone's good taste here. Even if we can establish this flick as a notable parody, even if we can find reliable sources that back up that claim and even if we find that BLP doesnt forbid us from including this film, what have we really added to Wikipedia by its inclusion?  Knowledge of this porn doesnt really give the reader any great insight into Sarah's persona, or people's objections to her.  It doesnt offer us any deep commentary on the subject or an ironic view of the woman.  In short it adds nothing to our understanding to Sarah Palin or the media that portrays her.  So, again, I appeal to your common sense here, lets use some editorial discresion and let this piece of tripe disappear.  Bonewah (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a thread concerning this article to the BLP noticeboard. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the quick answer it got over at the notice board. BLP applies.  However, I will also say: (1) BLP is not violated by covering a notable video work; (2) BLP also governs the way in which we describe verifiable things, not just whether we describe them or not; and (3) although Wikipedia is not exactly a "free speech" zone, we will find it next to impossible to use "literary value" as a dividing line between allowable and non-allowable subject matter here.  Porn, like every subject under the sun, is fair territory for an encyclopedia.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a notable video work I know that some editors feel it is, but this would be my question. I am not going to edit this article however. --Tom 17:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bonewah, I would urge you to use more neutral language in getting your point across. Any notion that you are objectively applying policy is undermined when you refer to the content of an article or subsection as a "piece of tripe." See also WP:idontlikeit
 * As to the issue at hand, I don't see any libel or BLP violation, but I'm not sure the subject matter passes notability. The sources of "The Raw Story" and "Violet Blue" are ok but not the best. A few newspaper articles also mention the existence of the film in passing: . Overall I would say it has sufficient coverage, but ideally a mainstream news source focusing primarily on the film should be given. dsol (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability threshold is really a matter for AfD (and I doubt the article would be deleted). WP:WEIGHT would probably govern whether a mention is merited here and, if so, how much.  Tina Fey and the whole "I can see Alaska" thing are probably the most significant parody.  This one does seem to have some significant and wide-ranging sourcing - El País, for example and NPR.  And then BLP may govern how the subject matter is treated.Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT doesnt really change the standard by which this should be judged, in my opinion. The sources this section cites are really weak, and the ones for whos nailin paylin are no better.  The truly reliable sources such as NPR and the like only mention this film in passing, or only to acknowledge its existence, and the other sources are at best marginal, and more often, porn industry specific weblogs and trade mags.  This is why I asked if this article falls under BLP, because, in my view, BLP demands a higher standard then just barely clearing the hurdle.  Heck, i would think Wikipedia deserves a higher standard then this, but seeing as my "use good taste and common sense" arguments are being roundly ignored i suppose not.
 * Let me try a different angle, forget about reliable sources for a second and explain what useful insight this section provides. If someone who knows nothing of American politics finds his way here, what does this section tell him?  What is it you expect the reader to have gained after reading this section?  If this section is truly notable, then that question should be trivial to answer. Bonewah (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability and "usefulness" is not for us to decide, it's for the secondary sources. If they cover the material (and it appears a number of respectable newpapers do), it's notable, regardless of what effect it might have on a hypothetical reader. The notability, reliable sources, and BLP policies are quite clear on this. Let me reiterate that the sense of disgust and frustration that appears in your comments does not do much to help your case. dsol (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your views on notability and usefulness flies in the face of common sense, but I get that you dont buy my line of reasoning in that regard. So lets talk about secondary sources then.  If this is a legitimate parody of Sarah Palin then find me a reliable source that says its a legitimate parody (and in a more than passing way, please).  As it stands, the only source in this article that comes close is 'The Guardian' which describes the film thus "the script's literary values are close to nil, and its political jabs... are often [close] to infantile."  This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the films notability.  Other sections of this article cite sources such as The Washington Times and ABC and the sources cited talk about their subjects as parodies, whereas the Nailin Paylin section cites sources that mention the film only in passing, or are not reliable sources. Bonewah (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would appreciate your opinions as to whether or not this article is a BLP or some portion of BLP applies here. thanks! Bonewah (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bonewah, you write: I think your views on notability and usefulness flies in the face of common sense. Putting aside the question of usefulness, these views on notability are pretty much the views of WP as a whole. Yes, the way in which they elevate transient newsworthiness to notability is bizarre; at least until you recognize that WP is determinedly anti anything that can be decried as "elitism". One Market Under God! &para; No source worth reading will say that some porn flick is a legitimate parody, but this is an unfair demand as it is also unlikely (though not impossible) that any such source will directly say that even an indubitable parody is a legitimate parody. Better to modulate the demand as one for the clear implication by disinterested, intelligent sources that this or that is a parody (and not just, say, a commercial ruse). &para; No, this article is not a biography, and it therefore isn't a BLP; but WP:BLP announces that it applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. Thus WP:BLP very clearly applies to this article. &para; Come to think of it, this may present an interesting line of approach. Is there any "biographical material" in this article? I think that Palin's gentlemanly defenders aren't the only people who'd say that no there isn't. Even the shortest description of this porn flick shows that its "story" portrays casual sex (and more). Is this something attributed -- with or without reason, but not merely by schoolboys and "Joe Sixpack" -- to Palin? If it isn't, then how can the porn flick be a parody or even a satire? If it's a satire, then it is so via exaggeration, of course. But is there anything that's exaggerated? While I'm no expert on Palin (or any other celeb), all I've noticed are febrile teenage blog-scribblings about "VPILF" and so forth, which don't count. If my hunch is right, the producers have used a mere masturbatory fantasy to create a commercial aid to masturbatory fantasies. The relationship with satire (let alone parody) remains unclear. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "No source worth reading will say that some porn flick is a legitimate parody, but this is an unfair demand as it is also unlikely (though not impossible) that any such source will directly say that even an indubitable parody is a legitimate parody." I wholeheartedly agree with the first part, however i disagree about the second.  Several other parodies included here have exactly that, a reliable third party source that calls them parodies.  Further, good sourcing is being cited as proof of notability [diff] and so i dont feel its unfair to expect those sources actually to establish notability.  Bonewah (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still have yet to see a legitimate rationale for the inclusion of this film as a notable parody. Im going to remove the section in question because a) I still feel that BLP applies here, at least to some extent, and b) just to respark the debate here.  Bonewah (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not agree with you. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you figure that, exactly? Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because no one other than you have said it should be removed, even after it was placed of the BLP notice board. Other editor besides me have said it belongs in the article. Nevertheless, I have requested comment below for more opinions. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed the part where other editors said it belongs here. More to the point, i missed the part where other editors justified its inclusion. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you may wish to reread this section, and thereby find out. -- Hoary (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking back i notice that several editors expressed doubt as to whether or not this should be included. Consider what DSOL said "I don't see any libel or BLP violation, but I'm not sure the subject matter passes notability." or you, Hoary, "The flick is unlikely to be a parody,..." and "So I'd be inclined to pull it," not exactly the consensus that evb claims. Heck, Hoary, rereading your comments, im not actually sure what your position is.Bonewah (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's "nuanced". Here you go: This dreck-to-video is an utterly unremarkable commercial wheeze, calculated to get media attention. The calculation paid off: it got hugely more notice in the mass media than the zero it deserved. Deserved or not, that media attention probably constitutes "notability" and brings "reliable sources", so it's likely to survive any second AfD. The parodical elements seem to be (i) some resemblance in hairstyle and glasses; (ii) references to Alaska and Russia. As a parody, it's likely to rate an effectiveness score of somewhere around 2%: to be a complete failure. On the other hand, if X purports to be an example of Y, its failure as Y doesn't seem to disqualify it from consideration as Y in Wikipedia. So I suppose that the article should stay and that a mention of it in this one should stay, though I have no enthusiasm for either. I hope I've made myself clear. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO
The Youtube and Funnyordie links need to be removed; they are not WP:RS, and are not appropriate links under ELNO. Any disagreement? THF (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not here. --Tom 16:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, plenty of disagreement. The article has a lot of links to Youtube and I don't claim to have examined exactly how all are used. Some may be misused. However, it's obvious that most are not used as putative sources for any assertion, and therefore the reliability of videos as sources is not an issue. Let's take the section on Benincasa as an example. Simply, it has three sources for the assertion that she parodied Palin. At the foot of the article is a link to the second series of her videos. The first series was only available at Youtube the last time I looked, and I think that this should be linked to as well. Such a link would not purport to be a "reliable source" or even a "source" at all; rather, it would be a time-saving resource. How so? Here's a ferinstance: On reading some months ago that "Obama girl" had made a video with/for Ralph Nader, I googled for it, and the first video I landed on made no sense at all (pleasant though it was). Only later did I realize that its "creator" had taken the original video and replaced much of it with bits and pieces (presumably taken from drive-in movies) of unrelated pneumatic babes wobbling around in tiny bikinis. Simple links to the videos (whether at Youtube or elsewhere) that are discussed in the article seem very worthwhile. How does "WP:ELNO" rule these out? -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Street art
What's notable about the street art used at the top of this article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably nothing at all. Is there a rule that every illustration must be a notable illustration? -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well sort of - otherwise, I could draw a picture of her sucking a guy's cock and add it to the article as "parody". The point is "is this a notable example of this phenomenon?" so is it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, let's not discuss male organs. So is this flyer notable? Googling certainly brings up some hits: here and here and so on. -- Hoary (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Google hits are a poor judge of noteworthiness. Even beyond Cameron's point about notability, i think inclusion of this street art is a bit of an NPOV problem.  Bonewah (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sheer number of Google hits is indeed a poor measure of noteworthiness. Particular pages, whether found by Google or by an alternative, might show noteworthiness. Or that's what I think; how would you look for noteworthiness? And just what is the "NPOV problem" here? -- Hoary (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "how would you look for noteworthiness?" - that multiple reliable sources have written about that piece of street art within the context of the subject of this article. Google hits doesn't cover it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that every ingredient of an article requires multiple reliable sources within the context of that article? (I hadn't heard that requirement before.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would look for some other reliable source that gives some indication of note. As for POV, you dont think that picture has a bit of a negative undertone to it? Bonewah (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So a column for LA Times doesn't hack it? As for the negative undertone, allow me to quote the very first part of the very first sentence of the article: Sarah Palin became a subject of parody, satire and derision [...]. At least one of those three, and perhaps two or all of them, is/are negative. Is this all right, or do you want to make a radical change to (or do away with) the article? (You don't seem to like it.) If it is all right, then what is wrong with illustrating the notion of a negative undertone with something that shows a negative undertone? -- Hoary (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture is mentioned in the LA Times? got a link? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake: LA Weekly. Care for the Vanguard? -- Hoary (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This Modern World section needs work or removal.
Sarah Palin was lampooned in a comic strip somewhere, so what? Why is this important? Bonewah (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually don't look at articles on soccer, baseball, tennis, etc. When I do, my reaction is usually "Some ball was kicked/hit somewhere, so what?" However, I realize that, although of no interest to me, watching other people do things with balls is of great interest to other people. And I have to concede that these are real people doing things with balls; this kind of thing strikes me as yet more trivial. Still, others seem to be thrilled by it.


 * Bonewah, I get the impression that you are as little interested in parodies [whatever that word means in this article] of Palin as I am in people doing things with balls. Perhaps your energies would be better directed toward articles on subjects that interest you. -- Hoary (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hoary, I too share your disdain for ball sports, however I am fully qualified to edit a page on Peyton Manning or Tiger Woods, and do you know why? Because Wikipedia articles are judged based on the rules of Wikipedia, not on the interest level of any given editor. So, in this example, if someone wanted to include information about Peyton Manning's television commercials, I could and would judge that inclusion based on what other reliable, independent, third party sources had to say about it, not my own personal tastes.  Now that's not to say that editors are forbidden from using their own judgment, we can.  And it is also not to say that every claim in Wikipedia needs multiple citations, they dont.  However, editors should be prepared to defend the inclusion of any material that might be contentious and there has been little rational argument made in the defense of the material here with which I have issue.  I have been told that the sources make the notability, yet no one has lifted a finger to improve the sources in this article, or address my sourcing concerns.  Whenever I ask someone to just explain why something is included I get total non-answers like "it's notable" or "go do something else", so Im forced to ask again why is this being included, by what standard is this comic strip included while others excluded? Bonewah (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was surprised the comic strip had its own article. Apparently, This Modern World is notable. However, I see no evidence that even a single reliable secondary source has written anything about the particular installment at issue. The fact that it exists does not support notability. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarah Palin herself was (with McCain) parodied in another This Modern World strip: [this one].


 * How is this strip -- the one about Ugg and a deer -- notable? I've just been googling but haven't yet found anything. However, in the course of not (yet) finding anything, I did find explanatory material for the deer/headlights thing that the particular strip plays on, and have introduced this, mostly within a single, monster footnote. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Doonesbury section is weak
The section on the Doonesbury comic is poorly sourced (one citation, back to Doonesbury.com), is of marginal relevance (no indication of notability) and might not be about Palin at all. As it stands now, the only proof we have that this strip is actually about Sarah Palin is the fact that we say so in the article. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said. Indeed, I'd guess that it's less about Palin than about McCain (and at most only very feebly about McCain). Plus, as you say, it's not written up anywhere. I've just now removed the section. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's Nailin' Paylin? yet again

 * To summarize my position on this issue, I feel that this article is a BLP or the BLP rules apply to some extent here. As such, i feel that the section should be removed because it is pointless, crude and in no way up to the standards that BLP requires.
 * Even setting aside the BLP questions, the notability of this section has not been established. Is this really a notable example of Sarah Palin parody?  If so, how come no one has even tried to establish that fact?
 * Even setting aside the two complaints above, there is still the question of sourcing. The section in question is sourced with 'the raw story', a porn trade mag, and some articles that mention this film only in passing. If this is a notable example of parody, it should be easy to find a reliable, third-party source that says so. Consider this source for another parody highlighted here Will the Real Sarah Palin Please Stand Up?, the citation describes its subject as parody and is independent and reliable.  If this film is a notable, legitamite parody, then it should be easy to find a reliable source that says so. Bonewah (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by a legitimate [however spelled] parody?

I'm sure that it's complete crap as parody; but, as stated above, a claim that X is an example of Y does not entail a claim that X is a competent example of Y.

As for the claim that this product is a parody (however crappy), there are:


 * This in something called the "News Chronicle"
 * This at news.com.au
 * This at the Register
 * This at livenews.com.au

Hoary (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, were getting somewhere now as sourcing was one of my major concerns. I really have to ask, though, if its complete crap as parody, why fight so hard to keep it in this article? Bonewah (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Using the premise that the flick (or its attempt at being a parody) is pointless, crude and/or crap to justify removal of this article's content, violates WP:NPOV. Some people might think it's quite fetching. It is not our place as editors to judge. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What, I've violated WP:NPOV? So sue me! No, much though I might like to add to the article something like "As this is merely a porn flick, any acting beyond sexual copulating, and certainly any delivery of lines, is likely to be at a level as atrocious as that of the widely ridiculed script", I don't propose to do so. However, I don't feel constrained to be polite about it here on the talk page. If it's complete crap as parody, why fight to keep it? I'm not fighting to keep it; I'm instead puzzled by what appears to be an effort to remove as much content as possible from this article, and responding to whatever arguments for this removal are provided. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

From the plot summary of the porn, it seems to be a parody which should be placed in this article. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to RFC I actually think it's long overdue to have a deletion discussion on this article. WP:BLP and WP:ATP both come to mind. Wikipedia articles should not be a list of "everything that makes you think this person is stupid or ridiculous." I'll let this RfC run its course, and if these concerns are not addressed (and I rather doubt they can be, given the subject and tone of this article), I'll take it to AfD. Ray  Talk 15:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's improper about the tone of the article? -- Hoary (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not tone, content. Please notice that we do not have such pages for other politicians; rather, we have pages on their public image, where positive and negative portrayals can be placed in balance. Parodies tend overwhelmingly to be negative. Sorry, let me strike tone above. Ray  Talk 16:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Parodies do indeed tend to be negative (and amusing). (Unless they're broadcast on television during election campaigns, whereupon they're not negative or amusing.) Well, during her brief period in the limelight, Palin seemed to attract an unusual number of parodies. Just four years earlier, as I remember, the media had great fun with Kerry's arrival somewhere on a gas-guzzling motorbike and his "report for duty" (salute). As for veeps and veep-wannabes, there've been Spiro Agnew and (bombs away with) Curt LeMay. There may well be material there and elsewhere for articles on parodies. I see nothing wrong if these epiphenomena around people who have chosen to be very public indeed are written up scrupulously. Of course you could stick the Palin stuff in a general article about her public image, but then there'd likely be some crackpot demands for curious kinds of "balance", etc within that article. And anyway, these parodies -- major and minor, bad and good -- don't necessarily say all that much about her image; they may instead say more about people's lingering desire for humor (generally broad, but sometimes even witty) toward the end of a curiously protracted jamboree on both/all sides of hot air, solemnity and sanctimoniousness. -- Hoary (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, people do have fun. But our WP:BLP policy does not make an exception for politicians (to say nothing of the more charged partisan issues relating to balance, WP:NPOV, and the partisan slant of particular cabals). And making somebody look the fool in an article is almost precisely counter to it. Great material for a humor or political wiki, though :) Ray  Talk 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, BLP doesn't make an exception for politicians. However, it does have a section about especial care for "non-public figures" ("NPF"). It's clear to me that a state Governor and Veep candidate is not a NPF. Thus Palin is just a regular living person. This RFC isn't about the article but instead merely about one part of the article, and there seems to be little interest even in that part. (As I've said above, my personal position is that the stuff about the porn flick is better removed, but for reasons having nothing to do with BLP.) So all in all if you're sure that the article violates BLP, then I don't see why you should hesitate in taking it to AFD. (NPOV, NPA, BLP, NPF, RFC, AFD -- yes, do hurry up and do something before we all die of a surfeit of alphabet soup.) Even though I'd guess that it will easily survive AFD and that people will still moan about it thereafter. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more a matter of ... timing. There's the storm currently brewing over a previous AfD/speedy on Criticism of Barack Obama. I am not eager to throw fuel on that fire by introducing this one to AfD almost contemporaneously. Also, I judge that, should the artilce be kept, the effects on the public image of Wikipedia of speedily deleting criticism of Obama while keeping up an article which has mentioned porn parodies of Sarah Palin to be ... awkward at best. Wikipedia won't be seriously hurt by leaving the deletion discussion for another day. Then also, I'm pretty damned close to filling my Wikidrama quota for the semester already. Ray  Talk 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that does make good sense. (I have my own strong opinions on criticisms of Obama, but this isn't the place for them.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, both that this article should be deleted and that now is not the best time to try. Im also anxious to avoid any drama, which is exactly why i want to remove Nailin' Paylin from this article, its a lightning rod for partisan drama while adding nothing to the overall quality of the project. Bonewah (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, Bonewah. Is the Who's Nailin' Paylin? article a lightning rod for partisan drama, or is this article a lightning rod for partisan drama? If the former, I can't comment on the drama (since I haven't watched that article), but I note that its earlier AfD ended with "no consensus", meaning that starting a second would be entirely legitimate. If the latter (this), I haven't seen any "partisan drama", though some of the discussions on this talk page have been repetitive and tedious. (Though for all I know either article may have acted as a lightning rod for drama elsewhere.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, i only care about this article, not Who's Nailin' Paylin?. By "lightning rod for partisan drama" i mean in the same sense that Criticism of George W. Bush was, it (seemed) to set the precedent of what is and is not acceptable in articles about political figures. Yet when Criticism of Barack Obama was created (and deleted) people on both sides were angry, and why not? Whats good for one political figure is good for another, right?  Barack Obama's  discussion page even has an FAQ on the subject and the precedent argument is so common it has its own  essay.  Both the essay and the FAQ say essentially the same thing: dont ruin this article just because some other article sucks, go fix the other article instead.  I have bad news for you guys, this is the other article.  Im sorry to be repetitive, but this is what i mean when i say "raise the bar", I mean establish that no political figure should be treated this way. Bonewah (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see also that you said " my personal position is that the stuff about the porn flick is better removed, but for reasons having nothing to do with BLP" so i suspect we are talking past one another. I do have to ask, though, what reasons would you give for removal? Bonewah (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to "properly time" an AfD, if indeed this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. A lightening rod would be the appropriate response. If precident for deletion has indeed been set, it's best to act while the arguments are fresh in the community's mind. I won't nominate it, because I see no policy violation, despite BLP and notability arguments to the contrary. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ill let Ray comment about the timing, personally, id rather see this article live or die based on its merits, rather than to prove a point raised elsewhere. Having said that, I will put this article up for deletion if Ray doesnt, but he should be given a chance to digest this and respond. Bonewah (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As Bonewah and I have said, now is not the best time. I'm sure the politically interested editors of Wikipedia will do their best to give this article a fair hearing, but why push people who are already on edge? I'm going to wait a few weeks until the current fuss dies down, and then we'll take this to AfD. I think this page is a shame, acts as a means of exposing the subject to ridicule in an almost entirely negative way, and reflects very poorly on Wikipedia, constituting a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. That said, I don't think it constitutes any illegal or terribly immoral act, so I sense no urgency. Anybody who does feel urgency about it is welcome to take it to AfD right now. Ray  Talk 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no harm in waiting. Bonewah (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bonewah asks some way above, and presumably to me, what reasons would you give for removal? (i.e. of the stuff about the porn video from this article). I've already tried to explain, and think I've already devoted quite enough of my limited lifetime to discussion of this very minor and uninteresting product. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)