Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Kilkenny


 * 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   delete. BJ Talk 02:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anne Kilkenny

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

Not notable except for one event - WP:BLP1E. POV fork of Sarah Palin. Kelly hi! 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork, appears to be solely for political opinion. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is primarily about a single event, however this event has been significant in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, appearing in virtually all major media outlets in the world.  It makes sense to keep this article as it is a subsidiary topic related to Palin, and would burden the Sara Palin article with too many details if it were to be merged with that article.  The article is well referenced with authoritative sources.  The article is NPOV, and does not approve of or criticize the letter. The contents of the article describe facts such as who wrote the letter, a brief summary of it, where it was published, and the notable impact it has had on the campaign. Please also see my comments on the article discussion page.  Let's keep this article.  scottb108, 02:30, 6 September, 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen numerous interviews of other people from Alaska who have gushed with praise for Palin, and those statements have also appeared in media outlets around the world. Those people aren't worthy of articles, either, simply for expressing an opinion. Kelly  hi! 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

--Scottb108 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — Scottb108 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I think its a good idea, feel free to look up other interviews and add to the article. I briefly searched and the only other Wasilla native interview that came up was with Palin's parents, but perhaps there are probably more out there as well.  The article could become an authoritative summary of Wasillan and Alaskan experiences of Palin.  Adding this to discussion page so everyone can take part.
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. 15 minutes of fame are up. Imagine if everyone who criticized Bush/Cheney in print were entitled to an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, there's hope for me yet. < > Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete even in her NPR interview Anne said the fame will be short lived. I will say that the interview covered the event (a viral email) much more then the content of the letter. I could see the email getting an article if it lasts.  Gtstricky Talk or C 04:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep content is notable, encourage editors to refine article to focus on event rather than personal opinions, show impact on overall elections process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)  — 24.16.118.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per above. Verifiable facts for her are going to be difficult to find. Calwatch (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, but limit in scope. Ms. Kilkenny is not notable, but what she wrote is very notable.  Its effects on the nascent McCain-Palin campaign may be as critical as the infamous Dukakis tank commercial or the Howard Dean scream.  If it becomes clear that there is no such backlash against Palin as a result of the Kilkenny letter, then I'd be ok with deletion (although I'd still support keeping it too, on the basis of the news interest it has already garnered). --JimBurnell (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thought: since Ms. Kilkenny is herself not (yet) noteworthy, but her letter is, I would support deletion of this article so long as either a separate article is created about her letter or some summary of the letter's content and its media coverage is added to Ms. Palin's article. --JimBurnell (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (See my suggestion, below, to Rename. thanks. HG | Talk 08:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC) )


 * Delete Subject does not meet WP:BIO. "overnight sensation " says it all. She cannot be notable for a single event.  Wikipedia is not the news. Once you remove the news-article material from this, there is little or nothing left. Wikipedia is not a soapbox-- and this certainly serves as a political soapbox to carry the message of a particular side in a US presidential race-- once you remove the soap, there is nothing left. Personally, I love what she's done and will probably find a way to circulate it-- off wiki. This is not the place for it, and the current media sensation does not establish notability. To call her potential effect on the elections anything more than a flash in the pan is gross exaggeration and crytal ballish.   Dloh  cierekim  14:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This has become a notable event, similar to Jeremiah Wright, KEEP for now as the event progresses and we see how big it becomes, it's a well sourced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)  — 24.16.118.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Please !vote only once. I have stuck your second !vote. Edward321 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I find only 51 gnews hits. I fail to see the VIRAL component.  It looks more like people TRYING to make it viral, and using Wikipedia to that end.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As Dlohcierekim puts it Wikipedia is not the news and standard guidelines say notable for one event is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If an article were to be written in a NPOV manner on this event, it would have to be about the email itself, not the non-notable person who wrote it. Also WP:COATRACK. Random  89  16:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This article should be on Wikipedia. Anne Kilkenny is now a public figure and the article lays out in neutral terms why and how she became so public and how to find out more. That is what Wikipedia is for. Deborah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.223.5 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)  — 70.20.223.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * DELETE! Anne Kilkenny is a political assassin! Plain and simple, she will distort the facts, make up stories, legitimize untrue rumors, and do everything possible to sabotage the career of anyone she has judged as unworthy; mainly opponents of those she wants elected.  She is a member of very selfish intellectual snobs, who feel they deserve it all, and the rest of us don't deserve anything.  She acts as though her and her friends have a right to nice homes, good jobs, private transportation, and all the higher finer thing of life.  While all the rest of us should live in high density housing, ride public transportation, and live on welfare or make minimum wage.  Anne Kilkenny is an evil person who cannot be trusted. - Posted by long-time Wasilla Resident 66.58.183.82 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — 66.58.183.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no way this person is notable enough to have her own page - an "Anne Kilkenny" search should redirect to a section of the Sarah Palin entry dealing with the controversies. Even having a separate "Sarah Palin Controversies/Scandals/Whatever" entry and discussing Anne Kilkenny there would be preferable to her having her own page. Seethaki (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable living person. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from the Anne Kilkenny discussion page wow, this is pretty much policially motivated and doesn't belong here. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

scottb108, 02:30, 6 September, 2008 (UTC) --Scottb108 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)" *KEEP DO NOT DELETE, article could be as significant as Jeremiah Wright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP This page should not be deleted. I heard NPR interview this woman in person today. People are Googling her and people want to know who she is. I was one of them. J.H (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP DO NOT DELETE. The article covers a topical person of interest whose knowledge couldn't matter more to the people of the United States right now, and it's well sourced. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * response:
 * KEEP The article is well referenced with authoritative sources. The article is NPOV, and does not approve of or criticize the letter.  The contents of the article describe facts such as who wrote the letter, a brief summary of it, where it was published, and the impact it has had on the campaign.  The letter's release is a significant political event in the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign.  If you feel that any part of the article is non-factual, or a reference is not authoritative, please describe the specific complaint so that it can be addressed by editors.
 * KEEP I agree --the article is politically charged, however it is a major current event and contains important information relating to the election and nominee for V.P. of the United States. The article should stay as it contains factual information from non-biased point of view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * from discussion about whether or not to delete:
 * KEEP The article is primarily about a single event, however this event has been significant in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, appearing in virtually all major media outlets in the world.  It makes sense to keep this article as it is a subsidiary topic related to Palin, and would burden the Sara Palin article with too many details if it were to be merged with that article.  The article is well referenced with authoritative sources.  The article is NPOV, and does not approve of or criticize the letter. The contents of the article describe facts such as who wrote the letter, a brief summary of it, where it was published, and the notable impact it has had on the campaign. Please also see my comments on the article discussion page.  Let's keep this article.  scottb108, 02:30, 6 September, 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen numerous interviews of other people from Alaska who have gushed with praise for Palin, and those statements have also appeared in media outlets around the world. Those people aren't worthy of articles, either, simply for expressing an opinion. Kelly  hi! 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP I think its a good idea, feel free to look up other interviews and add to the article. I briefly searched and the only other Wasilla native interview that came up was with Palin's parents, but perhaps there are probably more out there as well.  The article could become an authoritative summary of Wasillan and Alaskan experiences of Palin.  Adding this to discussion page so everyone can take part.
 * KEEP This is the only interview that was on the front page of the New York Times. The article is not about opinions, it is about an important event in the election, namely, the letter being widely circulated throughout the world and becoming an integral part of public discourse on the election.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.107.112 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)  — 12.11.107.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP DO NOT DELETE The woman, Anne Kilkenny who wrote this open letter is an extremely important American. She is an informed citizen doing her part to inform others about a potential disaster in a very dispassioned even handed factual manner. The article is NPOV. She cites Sarah Palin as popular and smart, but also ruthless. She fills in some of the small town background info we can get nowhere else. Rktect (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I can't help but notice the reasoning (as well as the passion) seems to reinforce my first objection, which is that political motives are at the heart of the article, thus not encyclopedia material, regardless of any "truth". Also, I notice that the same person voted keep a few times above....P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

KEEP: Page meets Wikipedia Notability guidelines WP:Notability "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]".

Debatable if she is known for just one event, as she is also a community leader and activist (perhaps someone could fill in these gaps in the article). If this is considered to be "one particularly relatively unimportant event" is determined, Wikipedia guidelines state that the article should be merged with the article dealing with the main event or added to it in summary style. (Related "event" articles include(Sara Palin or 2008 Presidential Election). Page should stay as she may be Palin's Jeremiah Wright, and thus more than relatively unimportant.  If issue drifts away and becomes less important over time, suggest merging this with Palin article as a summary style link to article.

WP:Notability states "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person...should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style."

from WP:Summary Style "The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically. In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:BLP1E - If there was more to Mrs. Kilkenny then this letter then this article would have merit. But there isn't... There is a mention of her in the Sarah Palin article that can have the letter mentioned and a reference to the letter and that's all otherwise we are seriously getting into the point of view business, which Wikipedia is not about.  --Pmedema (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, and information about this person is clearly a significant piece of knowledge and the historical record. I myself looked up Wikipedia to find out about her. Knowing who she is is also relevant to our interpretation of the claims she makes. Eoghan (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No inherent notability, thus not meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I like breaking out individual articles about major vents and people in the campaign, but this is going beyond reason. The person who gives each individual interview about a candiadate is not t herby individually notable because the interview is published and reprinted. DGG (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I find myself agreeing with DGG and comments by PharmBoy. No indications of notability. Keep arguments based more on personal testimonial and emotional appeal than meeting notability criteria. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete because we should cover the event and not the person but one problem with this is that the person is also what makes the story important with "Wasila" native being the reason she became well known. But, still, needs more coverage to deserve own article. gren グレン 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Please, if we documented every person that disliked a political candidate, they'd quickly outnumber the Pokémon. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But EVula, isn't the key question whether the reliable sources are documenting and covering a person's opinion of the candidate? If the coverage is notable, then in what article should it be placed? HG | Talk 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per EVula, BLP1E, and oh by the way Palin-ism is spiraling out of control. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * important Kelly's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly) indicates she has strong POV (strongly favors Republican). This is a fact as can be seen on her site.  I bring this up not as an attack, but as it relates to her proposal for deletion, which I believe is a POV attack on this NPOV content.  Jeremiah Wright was also just one person only known due to his influence on the 2008 Presidential Election.  This article is notable and has been recently edited for better NPOV, the Wikipedia process is working.Scottb108 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I moved the above notice to the bottom of the page. History will show I have already had to delete attacks previously.  Someone's political leanings has no bearing on the conversation.  Should I put an "IMPORTANT" note under my !vote saying that I don't like McCain or Palin, even though I voted delete?   This is a lame attempt to attack the nominator, instead of arguing against her logic.  21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The nominator's political position is irrelevant to a breach of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which many editors (myself included) feel this article represents. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:POVFORK used as a WP:COATHAGER against Sarah Palin. --22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely fails per WP:BLP1E. Dreadstar  †  23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move Per WP:BLP1E we should be covering the event and not the person. The event is notable enough for inclusion.  Hobit (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to what? What event are you referring to? Are you suggesting that the article be moved to Anne Kilkenny's criticism of Sarah Palin? ..........didn't think so. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (fyi -- Below, I recommend a Rename. Thanks, HG | Talk 08:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

KEEP People are googling Anne Kilkenny and there should be some background on her. Her revelations could affect the outcome of the 2008 election. The letter is all over the internet so you won't be able to delete it but wikipedia could help to put it in context. User: Deb Klein, Verona, WI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.32.211 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — 68.115.32.211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - this is a classic case of where BLP1E comes into effect. She wrote a letter. She was interviewed. BFD. Use as a small piece in the "reactions" article or in the Palin article itself as a minor incident. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet alert I have marked both 24.16.118.222 and Scottb108 as sockpuppets, as their contribs seem to be very similar, both posting the same spam/external link, both spa's, both in the above article only. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See Suspected_sock_puppets/Scottb108 for the case against him. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 02:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete let's start with WP:NOTNEWS - wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a current events site. Wikipedia is not here to highlight one side or another of political debate. She clearly fails WP:ONEEVENT, WP:N, and probably a few others. Just because people are stirring up shit (for or against political candidates) doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to "report" on every incident. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep - this topic is, well, topically significant. It remains to be seen in the long run if the author discussed in the article, or the essay that has given her currency in the media, will have long-term significance. It may be the letter than sank Palin, or it may be the letter that people point to as evidence of her unlikely rise to power. Or it might be a 2 week flash in the pan.

But at present the author and her article are very significant to the public discourse, and the likelihood that she and it will remain significant in the history of presidential politics dictate that we not remove copy now that will have to be redeveloped later. Erie lhonan  02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep Anne Kilkenny was contacted by NPR and she confirmed that she wrote the email. Anne's view-point is valid. Anne's email is national news. Anne is providing American voters with an important resource for the November 2008 presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrina Brennan (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — Sabrina Brennan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Rename. Checking Google news, the letter seems to be getting coverage in reliable sources. Such as Newsweek. It seems to be a relevant blip within a major political contest. However, I agree that, so far, the person is merely known for one event. WP:BLP1E. So, since the event is getting covered (e.g., Boston Herald), we should consider renaming the article thru a Move to Anne Kilkenny letter, or the like. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the Newsweek link is actually from Factcheck.org, 8 Sept, which is noted by Newsweek at the bottom of their page. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Newsweek states: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." Still, it's (re-)published by one of the top news ("newsweekly"?) organizations in the U.S. HG | Talk 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * agree with rename suggestion A much better idea than deleting a referenced notable article. I love watching some WP'ers squirm when the sources line up in an inconvenient sense like this... sure Anne Kilkenny may not be as notable as the king of england, but I have gotten this email five times already and some people need to consider how many times they want to revert the creation of the same article until november. Viral is the word for it indeed, and I hope most editors realize at this point, WP pisses into the wind when it tries to eliminate subjects like internet memes. The sources and notability won't go away just because the name of the author doesn't deserve the space... and also please remember that this subject has WAY more NPR sourcing than most "internet meme" articles. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete in accordance with Biographies of living persons. Incorporate any useful, well-referenced content in the Sarah Palin article. We need to keep our Palin-related content consolidated into just a few carefully watched articles in light of the hundreds of non-neutral edits we're getting everyday from partisan editors (both pro- and anti-Palin). Fewer but bigger articles are easier to monitor for mischief than lots of smaller ones. Besides, Ms. Kilkenny never set out to become a public figure and does not need periodic unsourced, nasty comments posted about her. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though you are known to be offensive to females ;), I think you have summed it up better than anyone. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork, deserves no more merit than all of Palin's letter-writing fans. Looks like merely an effort to gain publicity for a Palin-hater. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider Article Discussion Comments

 * Process comment: Suggest we consider parallell discussion regarding deletion at article discussion page, which occured previous to AFD link inserted for people to follow who did not know to go here for discussion.  --Scottb108 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't know how to read (and act upon) the AfD notice on the article itself, they are unlikely to be familiar enough with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines to properly participate here. AfD isn't a popular vote, it's a discussion based on policy. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not the proper forum to discuss the policies regarding AFD's. We don't change the rules "on the fly" simply because it is inconvenient for your bias.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Anyone besides me wish the political hacks would stop trying to use Wikipedia for their own nefarious ends? I'm talking about Republicans, Democrats, McCainites, Obamites, and anyone else. Shoo!  Dloh  cierekim  05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.