Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies 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   merge to public image of Sarah Palin. BJ Talk 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Parodies of Sarah Palin

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

This article appears to be a POV fork of public image of Sarah Palin. It offers little information that has not been better presented elsewhere and only serves to cast the subject in a degrading light. Perhaps a merge would also be an option.Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, the article cites surveys of parodies of Palin ("Palin Parodies Flood the Web", Washington Times [sic], "The Palin Parodists", Newsweek): WP has not developed the concept of parodies of Palin by "OS" but instead acknowledges others' observations that, fairly or unfairly, she has generated an unusual amount of parody. Thus this article has a real subject matter. This article a content fork? While parodies are clearly related to public image, they're only one part of it at best and they're arguably not part of but merely complementary to it. So in principle, no. And in practice? It's odd to claim this is a POV fork, as the public image article says very little indeed about parodies -- as is proper, for it must present stuff about opinion polls, crowd sizes and so forth. "Degrading" is an absurdly strong term to apply to article's concise descriptions. As for what's described, "degrading" doesn't start to describe the anodyne content of the mass-market stuff (Tina Fey, etc) described in the article; and as for the narrowcast material, while Benincasa (for example) has made no secret of her dislike of Palin, even here "degrading" seems a great exaggeration. The nominator of this AfD has, over the months weeks, doggedly opposed a number of the ingredients of the article, and weeks ago was muttering about taking it to AfD; see Talk:Parodies of Sarah Palin, where you can read these objections and the counterarguments made to them: fairly strong counterarguments, I believe, though as one of the counterarguers I'm hardly the best judge. -- Hoary (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC) one word amended Hoary (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By some elements, Hoary no doubt means the pornographic "parody" which he absolutely refuses to let me remove from this article, which, yes, I feel is degrading and unnecessary. Bonewah (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is not at all what I mean, and the "no doubt" within it is stunning. Bonewah hardly represents what has been going on. I have expressed a personal desire to get rid of the porn stuff (although for reasons other than Bonewah's), I've expressed no more than grudging acceptance of others' arguments to keep it, Bonewah has raised objections to two other discrete sections of this article (and agreed with an objection to a fourth discrete section), I have agreed with one of his objections and removed that section. Or the same in diffs: Bonewah objects to description of the porn flick, Bonewah amplifies the objection. After strong arguments for its retention by Evb-wiki (not me), far from absolutely refusing to let Bonewah remove it, I say I think it should go. After considering what Evb-wiki writes, I reluctantly agree that it should stay. (There's much more about the porn, a large percentage of it by Bonewah. See the talk page if interested.) Bonewah agrees with another editor's objection to the poster at the top, Bonewah demands a reason for the inclusion of a section about a This Modern World strip, Bonewah objects to something from Doonesbury, I agree with Bonewah's objections to the Doonesbury section and (since nobody has defended it) announce that I have removed it. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm looking at this article against Public image of Sarah Palin, and I'm leaning on the side of proper content fork. I don't think this was created to highlight one POV, or remove it; it's a seealso in the "public image" article. Hell, one could argue, to non-Alaskans, that the parodies are the most notable aspect of her. I don't know... but I think that this is a proper above-board spinout Sceptre (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sceptre. Its inclusion into Public image of Sarah Palin would make that article too big, and the split looks fine per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Merge 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." Parodies are by definition things that make a person look bad, and collecting them solely on one page creates a page that only serves to contain negative material about the subject. I quote directly from the BLP policy: "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" commentary about people, however notable. The speedy deletion of Criticism of Barack Obama set a precedent that even legitimate criticism of a notable figure should not be collected on a one-sided page. Parodies certainly deserve less consideration. Ray  Talk 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that parody is not always negative; take for example, the numerous "abridged series" on YouTube. While they do poke fun at the source material, they poke fun for comedy, not poke fun to attack. Conversely, criticism is 99.99% of the time, outside of the arts, negative. Comparing parody and criticism is like comparing apples and oranges. To apply my argument to this article: the Sara Benincasa vlogs. Obersvational comedy, not an attack. Hence why I'm !voting against my usual vote: because this is an acceptable spinout article. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I pointed out in an earlier discussion that criticism need not always be negative, and you replied that it is overwhelmingly so. My impression is that parodies tend negative far more than criticism does, and criticism in a separate spinout page is already deemed unacceptable. Ray  Talk 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On balance, parodies actually tend to average out in opinion. Where you'll get scathing parodies, you'll also get affectionate parodies. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that, but I think we've pretty much put our positions out there. Let's let other editors have a say. One thing you can be sure of: if this article is kept, given the state of political tensions, a "Parodies of Barack Obama" page will go up. Ray  Talk 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on how many parodies there are: a small amount compared to his public image as a whole can be dealt with in the public image, but when the parodies are the most notable thing about the public image (as is the case with Palin, arguably), then it may be time to think about spinning out. Simple. Sceptre (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the argument that the most notable thing about Palin's public image are pardodies to be absurd, especially considering how short the parodies article actually is. Seriously, does anyone really think that a "parodies of Barack Obama" article that featured a porn flick would be acceptable? I dont, and I dont see why Palin is any different. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone not from the US, most of the stuff I knew about Palin was that stuff she did was a bit funny and was thusly parodied. Still, tell me when Who's Ridin' Biden? comes out. Sceptre (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've nothing against the idea of a "Parodies of Barack Obama" article. If there were reliable sources for a porn film that played off his image and that had convincing claims to be [an attempt at] a parody, I wouldn't express objections to the inclusion in that article of a description of the film. (Inwardly, I'd object, for the same reasons that I objected to the inclusion of this flick in the Palin parody article: see its talk page.) I'd argue against a "Criticism of Sarah Palin" article: if criticism is mere moaning or silly talk about her accent, choice of clothes, accent, then it's unremarkable and can be skipped (unless perhaps this "criticism" itself becomes discussed by RS); if on the other hand it's substantive (and sourced, etc etc), it should be summarized as appropriate and be integrated within the most appropriate article, probably the main article about her. (Likewise "Praise for [politician]".) -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 17:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect back to Public image of Sarah Palin where it belongs. As RayAYang says, the precedent is clear. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Back into public image of Sarah Palin, since her public image was heavily redefined by the parodists (more than any other VP candidate in recent history). Pastor Theo (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the main reason not to merge would be to keep the relatively serious discussions in the main article free of this sort of material. But in general we do not do this, because it is intrinsically a POV fork.  There are a few cases where we do need to quietly do such forks, because of either the extent of material or other factors. I don't think this is exceptional enough. It might become so, if she should again be a serious candidate for a similar national office, or receive a Nobel Peace Prize, or something of the sort. We can wait till then.  If we do divide, it should be on medium, not literary form--it's a more objective criterion. DGG (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The satirical image of Sarah Palin is now quite different from the real image of Sarah Palin and has itself become a notable topic of public discourse, e.g. with discussion about the quality of different parodies of her. Cs32en  10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Cs32en that the parodic Palin has taken on a life of its own, a life that is unlikely to fade anytime soon since Palin is being touted as a potential Presidential candidate in 2012. I'd like to see this article stress more strongly the phenomenon of Palin as the target of parody (not simply the parodies themselves), othwerwise I see no problem with such a well-researched article on such an obviously notable subject. Pinkville (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if one accepts that parodies of Palin is a notable topic, that does not necessarily mean that there should be a separate article on the subject. As Ray said above, criticisms of X person can be notable but still not be acceptable for their own article. Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The parodic Palin has taken on a life of its own, and for that reason, a separate article is called for. Pinkville (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand this argument. The parodic version of anybody takes on a certain life of its own after a while (I've read that Peter Lorre did a really amusing imitation of Peter Lorre imitators); but that is irrelevant to the forking issue. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The parodic version of anybody takes on a certain life of its own after a while. Well, I can't agree with that. Regardless, did Peter Lorre's "routines" receive critical notice? Did they have an impact beyond his own living room (and a passing mention in a film history book)? If so, maybe they should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The parodic Palin is a significant phenomenon, the phenomenon itself has received significant notice, and the prospects are for more of the same. It seems to me it's a subject in its own right, not merely and only an element of her public image. Pinkville (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cs32en & Pinkville & especially Sceptre. This is a proper NPOV content fork. Parody is distinct clearly from image. For the record, this article was merged with "public image" at least once before  but the parodies were promptly deleted form "public image"  after being whittled down as insignificant. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect back to Public image of Sarah Palin where it belongs. As OrangeMike correctly points outs the precedent is pretty is clear. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cmt - I think the assertion of precedent here is misplaced. Wikipedia is not a court of common law. The fact that similar articles exist or don't exist is largely irrelevant. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We may not be governed by common law, be we are governed by common sense, which tells me that if other very similar articles are considered to be POV forks, then this article is likely to be a POV fork as well. At a minimum, the same thinking should apply, which tells me that the title of the article encourages a certain POV in almost exactly the same way 'criticisms of' encourages POV. Bonewah (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed the same thinking should apply. For whatever reason the WP treatment of Palin is often compared with that of Obama. I'm sure that there are parodies of Obama but they don't yet seem to have gained wide attention. Certainly I am not aware of any attempt so far to create an article Parodies of Barack Obama. I'm sure that during his presidency there will be parodies of Obama that are written up in the newspapers, etc; when this happens -- when reliable sources emerge for the new subject of parodies of Obama or a parody-Obama -- then anyone who cares to create Parodies of Barack Obama in accordance with WP policies should be welcome to do so. Veep candidates are rather often parodied during their campaigns and if this is hardly mentioned in the WP articles on most of them I'd put this down to WP's "recentism". &para; (When we go further back, WP's political bios become bizarre: Pitt was (like his great rival Fox) vigorously satirized within the popular print culture of which James Gillray is the best-known exponent, yet the section of the Pitt article about pop culture completely ignores this despite having enough space for the description of recent minor films.) &para; "Criticism" is a rather different matter. The word can cover anything ranging from jibes by AM radio blowhards to reasoned books by Nobel prize-winners; the former do not strike me as encyclopedic until they are discussed in the mainstream press, whereas the latter may well merit inclusion in the main article or relevant sub-article ("Economic policies of the Clinton administration" or whatever). Anyway an encyclopedia article should evaluate the achievements (or lack thereof) of a president or veep, and I believe that, of course via RS, it should also describe the appeal (or lack thereof) of a candidate for president or veep. No supplementary article on criticism (or praise) of the person should be necessary. &para; All of this is what my own "common sense" tells me; our common senses may of course differ. -- Hoary (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really think this type of entry is a good idea, then what about this ? I would argue that it should get exactly the same attention and be given the same weight as "Who's Nailin Palin" since it is the sequel produced by the same company,starring the same actors, and dealing with the same subject. Personally, I don't think any of the "parodies of", "public image of", "criticisms of", etc. articles are anything more than POV forks. However, if these are going to be created then the rules should apply equally to all public figures. Either remove the "Parodies of Sarah Palin" or create a "Parodies of Barack Obama" using the identical sources that mention both the "Who's Nailin Palin" video and the "Obama's Nailin Palin" videos. Wperdue (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Again this conflation of parodies and criticism, and now with public image thrown in for good measure. I believe I separated parodies from criticism in the message to which you purport to resopond. What was wrong with this part of my argument? &para; So, the Palin porn flick, yet again. (This has never been of interest to me, and I rather resent having to think of it yet again.) It is briefly summarized in the article not because it is notable in any normal sense of the word but because it appears to be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense: it made the news. Is Obama is Nailin' Palin "notable", and can it be written up from RS? If so, then anybody interested is welcome to create the article. I'm not interested, but I'm no less interested than I am in the first flick. &para; You think Parodies of Sarah Palin should have the counterpart Parodies of Barack Obama? Then go ahead and create it. Offhand, I can't think of anything to put in it aside from (perhaps) Flynt's aid to male masturbation to which you linked, but I may very well be underinformed about Obama parodies (for one thing, I'm not in the US). &para; A lot of these objections to an article on "Parodies of Sarah Palin" seem to me to blame some bias within/of Wikipedia for the uneven distribution of parody (loosely defined). The simple fact is that Palin attracted it far more conspicuously (and, I'd guess, attracted far more of it) than did any other US politician during the last election cycle. Palin herself implicitly acknowledged its significance when she commented on and gamely participated in the SNL treatment. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. The extent to which Ms. Palin has been parodied is notable, but whether it's intentional or not, pulling all of these parodies out into a stand alone article has the effect of creating a POV fork. Merging this back into the public image article will make it easier to not only maintain balance, but to maintain the appearance of balance. EastTN (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cmt - If "maintaining balance, or maintaining the appearance of balance," means removing all mention of the notable parodies (as it has apparently meant in the past), I am firmly against it. However, if the article is to be merged and the contents maintained in a contextual balance, I only weakly oppose the merger. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that we remove "all mention of the notable parodies." What I do support is the proposal to merge them back in with the main article on the public image of Sarah Palin.  I'm a firm believer that the best way to maintain balance is to keep things in context - and the context for these parodies is the broader public image of this candidate. EastTN (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reliable sources covering the specific topic-- parodies of Sarah Palin. Hoary cites some above: (Palin Parodies Flood the Web, The Palin Parodists, Newsweek) Blazingly "Notable" in Wikispeak. So, Where's the beef? Dekkappai (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here, as stated at the outset of this discussion, is POV fork, not notability. Bonewah (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if the topic of the article actually is notable, wouldn't it be a POV merge not to fork it out? Cs32en  22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. If a subject is obviously notable, and the article is sourced, and as substantial as this one... Assuming all good faith, POV would seem to be the reason for requesting its deletion or merge. There's the beef. Dekkappai (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to be pedantic, parodies in general of Palin have been the subject of secondary sources. Criticisms of people generally are not the subject of secondary sources. Sceptre (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we assume that POV is the only good faith motivation for suggesting a merge? The concern that has been expressed is that this article creates a de facto POV fork.  Those of us who've expressed that concern may be mistaken, but it doesn't follow that we're trying to push a POV - especially since those who support a merge generally haven't suggested that anything be deleted. EastTN (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that everyone who wants the article to be merged is arguing from a POV perspective. However, it's possible that some editors would assume that only a fork, not a merge, can be motivated by POV, thus discounting the arguments in favor of a fork as motivated by POV. Cs32en  21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.