Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty 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 (non-admn closure), consensus to keep, if article needs improving then improve, delete inappropriate avenue Fr33kman talk  APW 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

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

There is not currently enough material to warrent a subarticle and the article is currently a word for word copy of the main article ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the Article, in my opinion there is enough material to support the article. and the article should be kept.--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Tha article is well-sourced and it's a notable topic. The main article is growing in all directions, and the replacement of this material with a summary would improve it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Will Beback. Note that there is also an article on Governorship of Sarah Palin, and this article goes well with that one.  This is standard practice for political figures.  For example, see Governorship of Mitt Romney and Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I should mention that I started the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment On the talk page of the Sarah Palin article, sentiment is against this particular fork because it seems to be hard to create a fair summary (only Ferrylodge disagrees). The sub-article and the section are very similar, and will remain so, negating the main purpose of a sub-article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The talk page discussion about summarizing that section only began a few hours ago, so it's premature to say that no consensus can be reached. Keeping this article will help promote that consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be true of an average article, but the Sarah Palin crew are as numerous and well-informed as an article can ever hope to have. Consensus can form rapidly. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, I understand the points above, but if she wasn't the GOP VP, then this article wouldn't exist. The other two examples WOULD exist.  Also, you can't compare an article about the governer of NY, the third largest state, or NYC, the largest city in the USA, with an article about a town of about 7,000 people.  The main points can be made in the primary article about Sarah Palin.  Anything else is either bound to be a POV fork, or a coatrack.  I don't see any other articles about being the mayor of a town of less than 10k people on Wikipedia, so the premise is flawed.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can always say, "well if so-and-so weren't famous then an article about them would not exist."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. The question is NOT "is Sarah Palin notable", the question is "is her term as mayor notable" and the answer is clearly "no".  To compare this to the time Rudy spent, during 9-11, as justification for the article is just silly.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I get your point. However, an otherwise non-notable early period of someone's life can become very notable due to events later in life.  See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a reasonable fork of Sarah Palin. I think the issue here is that Palin's article has asploded in every direction, due to her rapid rise to national prominence; with Barack Obama, for example, we've had years to develop United States Senate career of Barack Obama. Would this content be notable in the parent article? Yes. It's reasonable, then, to have it as its own article here. I concur that this wouldn't be an issue if she were not the VP candidate - but she is, and we have to accept that that changes the notability question, somewhat. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait and see. If the page develops useful content we can keep it. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article only has 4.5kb of readable prose, which easily fits into Sarah Palin, which currently has 22kb of readable prose. It may be well-referenced, but that is because it is a 1 for 1 duplicate of the Mayor of Wasilla section in Palin's article and that section is well referenced. Additionally, a summary of this section will garner very little in terms of article size reduction. The current proposed summary (see here) only achieves a reduction of 350 characters words and that's done by removing most of the negative aspects and retaining the positive. If article size is a concern for Sarah Palin, then I'd start with the Governor of Alaska section which is almost as long as Governorship of Sarah Palin. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just plain incorrect. The reduction would not be 350 characters.  It would be from 825 words to 473 words.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh. Heh. Sorry. You are correct. It is words. Tell ya.. I should just give up typing today (especially in this AFD). Thanks for the second catch. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You meant to say "Keep" instead of "Delete" too, right? :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, you're right! I did!! *laugh* Nice try.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - . . . and incorporate notable info into the main SP article. This subject is for the most part of interest only in the short term. Many much more distinguished politicians do not have assortments of subordinate Wikipedia pages devoted to phases of their careers. This would not be a good trend to start. Wikipedia cannot provide in-depth biographies. That is not what it is set up to do. --Pleasantville (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia isn't set up to provide single articles that are the equivalent of book-length bios of prominent persons. Nevertheless, by the magic of wikilinking, Wikipedia is set up to provide an overview of the person's life, with daughter articles that give in-depth information on specific subtopics.  Under WP:SS, we can provide the equivalent of in-depth biographies, only structured so that readers who don't want to read the whole biography can readily find the specific parts they want. JamesMLane t c 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Content is constantly being deleted from Sarah Palin and Political positions of Sarah Palin with the (sometimes accurate) assertions that the articles are already too large or that the topics are not pertinent to the bio or political positions, respectively. This article will be enable some of the events that occurred while she was mayor to be more fully developed. As for pertinence, I personally believe that being the mayor of a small town provides incidental executive experience, but Karl Rove, John McCain, and Sarah Palin have all talked about this period in her life as contributing greatly to her qualifications. Therefore, it's a definite KEEP.--Appraiser (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This one. Notable, new sources all the time, no reason to compress it down into the parent article today. rootology ( C )( T ) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak merge to main article, but I am impressed with the sourcing on this. Still, I don't care for branching off multiple articles from a main any more than is necessary, and this may be a bit much for now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.  Article can be expanded. -- LighthouseSpider (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Is notable and can't fit in parent article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ, I don't think you understand what's going on here.. Mayoralty of Sarah Palin is smaller than what is currently in Sarah Palin. It's not a matter of can the content fit back into the main article, but that splitting the Mayor of Wasilla section off from the main article was unnecessary because, at this time, there simply isn't the content to justify a sub-article. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete Someone one has moved this material, verbatim, back to the main article, and a consensus discussion in talk has decided not to summarize it. Accordingly there is no reason for this article to exist. Perhaps editors would care to reevaluate their positions based on this new information?--Paul (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hopeful that if this article is kept, editors will reevaluate their positions not to summarize in the main article. The main article currently contains a great deal (several hundred words) of boring and excessively detailed info on this subject, and that info would be much more appropriate in this article only.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ferrylodge. Also note that for GFDL reasons we can redirect this article but not delete it if we are going to put content from it into the main article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There aren't any GFDL concerns here. The article is a direct copy and paste recreation of Sarah Palin and that if this article were to be deleted, there would be no content moved from the sub-article to the main article. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. It cannot possibly be true that we need a separate article to describe someone's six years as mayor of a town of 6,000 people.  This is not akin to the Governorship articles, nor to Rudy Giuliani's mayoralty, whose scope was 1,000 times greater.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WTR, do we need articles about what people did before they ever did anything noteworthy? See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Her article is still only medium-sized at most. I've worked on articles three times as big!  If she ends up becoming the next Ronald Reagan, yes at some point there will need to be an "Early life and early political career of Sarah Palin" article.  But not now.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've spent considerable time shortening some of the articles you've worked on, WTR. :-)  A big problem here is that the main Sarah Palin article is already mostly a summary article; the remaining non-summarized section on her mayoralty is therefore now receiving undue weight in the main article, merely due to the fact that the other sections are summaries.  Additionally, there's plenty of material here to start a new article.  Look at the article you started on Julia Keller!Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look, and the proportions seem okay to me -- her Governorship section is still well-sized. And in the Talk:John McCain context, you went on and on with me about how we couldn't describe her as inexperienced, because the years spent as city council member and mayor were so important and meaningful.  So you're being a little inconsistent here.  And comparing a proposed split-out with a stub article about another person is completely illogical.  That stub creation was totally appropriate, if you don't like it bring it to AfD and I'll be happy to defend it there.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your Keller stub just fine. This article is way more than a stub.  Also, I don't see why it's inconsistent to want to create a separate article about a meaningful subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Subarticles come with real costs: ongoing maintenance of duplicate material, fights over what goes in the main article and what doesn't, and a readership dropoff that page view statistics show as on the order of 100:1.  Subarticles should only be used when absolutely necessary, and I don't think it is here, not for being mayor of 6,000 people.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment For comparison a total of two people have a separate article about their time as mayor - - and both of them relate to New York City.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)And deservedly so. Being Mayor of New York is really like being president of a small country, and it's often been described as the second toughest job in America (after President).  If someone is hankering to write another mayoralty article, start with Ed Koch, a true New York character and powerhouse force, and poorly served by his current article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LOTS and lots of Wikipedia articles address periods in people's lives before they did anything independently notable. I think focussing on mayors is kind of like focussing on people named Sarah (i.e. too narrow a focus).  See .Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Category:Early lives by individual shows only 19 entries. Most of these are extremely famous people (Plato, Newton, Washington, Lincoln, JPII), some are okay recentism (GWB, Benedict XVI), and some are embarrassing recentism (Spitzer and Paterson, give me a break!). Let's not add Palin into the embarrassing column, until she's been more than a two-week political sensation. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is simply a subarticle of the main Sarah Palin it's there so stuff in Sarah Palin can be a real summary. It's not possible to merge back anything the goal is to get detailed info in the subarticle and a short summary in the main article. We simply need this for article developement and it's standard practice. Hobartimus (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- by all accounts, Sarah Palin was a popular mayor. Yet you wouldn't know it from the article as it presently is written. It's mostly a trash-Palin piece -- referenced but with little attempt at presenting a balanced picture. Criticism of Palin is given undue weight. So if this article is kept, it needs a lot of work. Likewise, if it's merged into the Sarah Palin, that material will need work. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, all I did to create this article was copy the corresponding section of the Sarah Palin article. Then I proposed a draft summary section for the Sarah Palin article.  I think you will find the draft summary section much closer to NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The section is rather negative right now, but that is primarily because the only content is related to Palin's first year as mayor, which was... Shall we say... a learning experience for Palin, something that Palin herself has admitted. What the section needs is additional information on the last 5 years of her stint as mayor which should make it more positve.. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There doesn't seem to be a need for so specific a content-fork at this point, and POV concerns have been raised. RayAYang (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments Barack Obama and John McCain are both Featured Articles. Every FA I have worked on has had links to several sub-articles that house details about the topic that would preclude the main article from becoming FA. Creating articles about aspects of Palin's life is absolutely necessary for a topic of such interest and absolutely necessary on the path toward making Sarah Palin a high-quality article. That article should have a brief summary of her stint as mayor with a tag coming here. This article should have details covering everything she did as mayor that is of interest to a broad audience. The typical reader wants to be able to find whatever level of detail interests him, but not all at once. That is the essence of the value of hot links. This article has plenty of opportunity for improvement toward NPOV, but that is no reason to delete it.--Appraiser (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per FerryLodge's comments. The article is now fairly substantial and the subject is notable. I see no need to delete over possible POV concerns. The solution to POV is to remove POV, not delete everything it touches.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable? yes. Supported by reliable sources? yes. Threshold for keeping article has been met. Merge and redirect would be the alternative, but I don't see any reason for that. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessarily specific fork. If we include large articles on every aspect of the life of every aspiring candidate then we will give masively undue weight to these individuals by comparison with other much more important political figures.  One article is sufficicent for Abe Linconln, I believe. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. See, e.g., Abraham Lincoln's early life and career; Abraham Lincoln on slavery; Abraham Lincoln assassination; Abraham Lincoln's burial and exhumation; Abraham Lincoln and religion; and Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It's unnecessary at this time and because of the activity on Palin in general allows POV editors just another avenue to include their edit if it's rejected on the main Palin page or if they want to "sneak" it in by subarticle by passing the consensus process that seems to be working on the main Palin talk page. Some evidence to avoid the main Palin consensus process is here : Talk:Sarah_Palin Theosis4u (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I was seeking to avoid the main Palin consensus by seeking consensus at the main Palin article?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Sarah Palin unless doing so would make that article too large. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a necessary daughter article of Sarah Palin that is consistent with summary style. This would be comparable (from a parent/child standpoint) with Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That one is ridiculous too. We have no other articles in all of WP that devote themselves to someone's stint as a small-town mayor or as a state legislator.  That should tell us something.      Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hobartimus's comment explains the reason to keep it -- as per WP:SS, linked by Scjessey.  The media have paid considerable attention to the history of one person's mayoralty of a small town.  As a result, we can reasonably assume considerable reader interest, and we have abundant WP:RS information on the topic, far more than for most comparable subjects. JamesMLane t c 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, summaries can be written, not easy given the controversy, but it can be done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sarah Palin' - Mayoralty of a town so small doesn't need its own article. Any useful prose can be merged. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of what is significant in her role as mayor would not be significant in a general biography of a vice presidential candidate. Therefore this article is needed to capture that detail.--Appraiser (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - good grief, this Palencruft is silly. Do we even have any "Governorship of xxx" articles for anyone else? --B (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. But most governors haven't run as vice president for a major party so we don't have the need to split things off as much. I suspect that for many major political figures who have had multiple major political positions we could find more than enough material to have such articles. We shouldn't confuse people not spending the time to do something as a demonstration that something isn't a good idea or isn't notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Governorship of Mitt Romney and George W. Bush as Governor of Texas. We should also have Wikipedia articles about the student councilship of xxx if the media thinks it's notable and many people are interested.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever reads these subarticles. For example, per http://stats.grok.se/, during August 2008 the Mitt Romney article was viewed 104,874 times, while Governorship of Mitt Romney was viewed 852 times.  So it would seem many people are not that interested.  Also, up at the top, you described the current mayoralty material as "boring and excessively detailed info".  Your arguments here lack consistency.    Wasted Time R (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's inconsistent. The current article is now structured with subheadings so that people can choose what they want to read about, instead of plodding through details that they're not interested in.  Also, I don't find it surprising that the Mitt Romney governorship article was viewed 852 times in August.  He's not a candidate for vice-president, after all.  Let's extrapolate, though.  Sarah Palin was viewed 4.2 million times in August, i.e. forty times as many hits as Mitt Romney for that month.  So, multiply 852 by forty, and you get about 3500 hits, which is a lot more than most Wikipedia articles get.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether people frequently read the subarticles as much as the main articles has little to do with the validity of the articles (although I have to admit that I'm honestly surprised at how few people have viewed Governorship of Mitt Romney). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is consistently true of all biographical subarticles and something I've posted about in several talk pages. As another example, in August 2008, Barack Obama 1,377,462 views, while the abovementioned Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama got 6,454 views.  These stats reveal a huge problem with WP:Summary style: moving material down into subarticles loses 99% of the readership and is thus almost tantamount to deleting it altogether.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not support moving the most pertinent and interesting material out of main articles into sub-articles. However, sub-articles serve a very useful purpose.  If you're arguing that Wikipedia should not have any more sub-articles, then I disagree with that, for reasons that really should be addressed elsewhere.  If any sub-article is appropriate, this should be it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Governorship of Sarah Palin and Electoral history of Sarah Palin to Early life and career of Sarah Palin. Enough is enough.  Grsz  talk  17:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, sub-articles for national candidates is very common. It's done for people who lost in the primary contests, and it's also done for those who won.


 * Yes, but Palin does not have near the career as either. All of the relevant information can easily fit in a merged article.  Grsz  talk  17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of great controversy, Grsz11. Obama is a first-term Senator who served in the state legislature.  The McCain camp says that Palin has just as much experience overall as Obama, and more executive experience than all of the other three candidates combined.  There is currently plenty of info in this article to justify a separate article, and the article is quickly growing in size.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I could live with a merged article. There just isn't a reason to have so many different article on her at this point.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge Wikipedia is not here to bolster the McCain campaign's claims for their VP candidate. This is not the mayoralty of New York, after all. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. This article is neutral.  It presents notable facts citing reliable sources.  It is too big now to fit in the main Sarah Palin article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Keep the page is already a better read than the main page as a result of edtiors being able to edit. Which leads you to ponder, why the need the keep the main page under lock and key? This page certainly defeats their reasoning. Suggest making the main page a smaller blurb and directing to the main feature article that exits here. --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep, and eliminate duplicate details in the parent article, Sarah Palin. First, those who think that the subject isn't important enough for a separate article miss the point that importance is based on reliable sources, not on one's personal opinion. Clearly, what Palin has done as governor did as mayor has been covered recently in so many separate newspaper articles that it has long ago clearly passed any notability threshold. Second, the real issue is that if this daughter article is kept, there needs to be a related consensus to eliminate the detailed, duplicate content in the parent article, in accordance with Summary style. Otherwise, the Wikipedia community looks totally incompetent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree we should definitely follow WP:SS. The corresponding section of the main article could do a much better job summarizing this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My sense is that so far there has really been no attempt to write that section as a summary; rather, what is excluded are matters that fall below the estimated "importance" level of other things in the article. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I suspect people are reluctant to pare down the bio article as long as this (and the Governorship article) have an AFD open. We should close them with "no consensus to delete" so we can get on with paring down the bio article.--Appraiser (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've worked this evening on summarizing what's in the main article. Right now, the main article contains about 800 words on her mayoralty, compared to about 1880 words in this article.  So, I think the summarization is improving.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Palin did no more as mayor than any other small town mayor. The content of the article is simply the result of the huge amounts of digging that resulted from her stunning pick. Do the ends justify the means?  Grsz  talk  00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It means that there are many more reliable sources talking about her mayoralty than there would be for a normal small time mayor. Notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I cannot believe that it has been nominated for AfD. I ask the Wikipedian who put the nomination to withdraw it, the same way that the nomination for lipstick on a pig was withdrawn. Dems on the move (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the topic (6 years of service as small-town mayor) receives ample coverage in the Sarah Palin article. Should she become, say, President, restore maybe, but as of now, definitely undue weight. Biruitorul Talk 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think WP:Undue weight refers to the amount of weight given to different things within a single article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Whether or not a sub-article is warranted in this instance is not grounds for deletion, per WP:DEL. Discussions and suggestions regarding whether this material is better in the main article or as a sub-page are entirely content questions and therefore best discussed on the article's talk page. There is no question that the topic is eminently notable, having received widespread media coverage. Debate   木  09:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently, this article is getting over 500 hits per day, on average.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Compared to about 180,000 hits per day for the main article over the same (brief) period. That's a 360:1 ratio.  So, anything that's moved from the main article to the mayoralty article should be something that you're sure that less than 1% of the audience would be interested in seeing.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But please keep in mind that putting too much stuff in the first couple sections of the main article will result in readers zoning out before they get to the later sections of the main article.  In other words, just because something is in the main article does not mean readers will read it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But that's what table of contents are for.  Anyone who doesn't care about Palin's time as mayor can click directly to the Governor or Vice Presidential candidates section.  Or can start the mayoral section, then skim or skip it and proceed to later sections.  There's no requirement that our audience read our articles from top to bottom in sequence.  History books are broken up into clearly defined chapters for exactly the same reason, and are processed by readers accordingly.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but I view a main article as a place for readers to find out what they want to learn more about. In other words, it's a place where they can read everything, and then decide what further details to seek.  And there are lot of other advantages to a sub-article like this, too.  It provides a relatively calm place where editors can focus on small details, and get them right, before butting heads with a million other editors in the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This is a big enough topic that it should have its own article. It has been discussed extensively in the media. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:28, 13 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.