Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral history of Sarah Palin


 * 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   keep. BJ Talk 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Electoral history of Sarah Palin

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

Article is redundant to Sarah Palin (before User:Happyme22 removed this section while this AFD was still in process). It is not particularly long and will not get much longer in the near future. Though fixable, it doesn't look nearly as nice as the section in the main article. Redundant. Reywas92 Talk 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant to existing Sarah Palin article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sarah Palin. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have placed the tables/charts from the Sarah Palin article in this article, and the Sarah Palin article now properly adheres to summary style. As a result of my actions, I feel that this article should now be kept. Happyme22 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The main article is incomplete without the tables. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it incomplete? Electoral history of George W. Bush, Electoral history of Ronald Reagan, Electoral history of Richard Nixon, Electoral history of Ted Kennedy, Electoral history of George H. W. Bush, etc. -- this is only a small example of separate subarticles for American political biographies, which Sarah Palin is, and their biographies are not 'incomplete'. It makes perfect sense to place the election tables into a separate article (this one) as not to clog up the main article and adhere to WP:SS. It is a very common practice. Happyme22 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A section with only a main doesn't seem very complete or common to me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it is structured that way in Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, etc. Happyme22 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So why does that mean this article has to follow in the same manner? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course other stuff exists, and there are other Wikipedia articles that structure things differently and place their links to their electoral history articles in different places. Many wikilink it under a heading in the article (John McCain, Ronald Reagan, etc.). Still others place them in a "See also" section (George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, etc.) Yet I see nothing wrong with the current format; it simply directs the reader to a different article for many reasons, including saving space in the main article. The nominator, however, has also voiced his opposition to a single link, so let me try something. Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is to discourage formatting an article based on what previous articles have been doing. As such, we're dealing with Sarah Palin, not the several other articles you've given. That said, a reader scrolls to the section looking for an overview, yet is given a link to another article. Is that what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do? ddAnd because the main article isn't all that long, we would lose nothing by merging the articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check out the summary I just wrote at the Palin page. It gives all the basics, and readers are directed to this article for more information. Here, more information is given with complete tables and more precise percentages. Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's better, but I still think it would be better to have the tables there. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is not redundant. The only thing at Sarah Palin is a link to this article, and [T]his was created because of complaints that the section had undue weight. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. The electoral history article now looks much better with the tables moved to it, but the original section is now empty without any summary, which does not adhere to WP:SS, Happyme22.  Although other politician articles do that, it is still not correct to have an empty header, and they all have significantly more electoral information, making it actually worthwhile to have a new article.  As she does not have as many elections to record, and the main article is not as relatively long, I still see no need for a new list.   Reywas92 Talk  00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try something in a minute. Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check out the summary I just wrote at the Palin page. It gives all the basics, and readers are directed to this article for more information. Here, more information is given with complete tables and more precise percentages. Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Good balance for the rest of the article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs expanding in terms of summary, but I see this as fair game for an article. There should be similar articles for at least Joe Biden in order to provide balance, of course. 23skidoo (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is :) Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it gives more detail for the  reader who is interested in this type of information  --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred
 * Keep - There are a number of these types of articles listed at Category:Electoral history of American politicians, so it is a legit topic for a list. Of all the ones created, this was the only electoral history listed for deletion and no electoral history has ever been deleted. Some of the initial issues have been fixed during this AfD and the editors of the article seem amenable to modifications for the article. -- Suntag (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a general rule, I'm wary of article forks about controversial figures unless they're really needed. In this case, we want this information but it would really clutter up the main Palin article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Absolutely notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it notable? She's only a candidate for Vice President? (Please read the basis for deletion before !voting)-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Palin article is getting a bit unwieldy, this is a good fork. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not extensive enough to need a separate article. DGG (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like plenty of useful material.  There's too much to fit conveniently into the main Sarah Palin article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge any important information into the main page, though. The candidate's page is only 80k, and this page is only 6k, which reinforces that this does not deserve to be a stand alone page. This can be recreated after Sarah Palin's main page is swollen past 140k (or so). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced and serves a good purpose. The subject is notable. I would like to see it expanded to include other electoral facts, such as endorsements she earned and so on. Buspar (talk) 04:53, 14 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.