Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Sarah Palin (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation of Sarah Palin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article violates WP:NOTNEWS. The article goes into needless detail that would be culled out of the main article (Sarah Palin) if a merger occurred. The resignation of a governor is not that big of a deal, especially when the article doesn't have much of anything to say about it. WP:NOTNEWS states: “Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.” That is truly the case here; this article simply isn’t encyclopedic by its very nature.

Let's take a step back here and look at the bigger picture. Sarah Palin is not a very important figure in United States history. Sure, she’s been in the news a lot since she became John McCain’s running mate last year, but she was not elected vice president. At this point, she’s just a former Governor of Alaska who served less than one term. There is nothing about her resignation that makes it especially notable in the history of the United States, and other than the fact that it happened recently, there’s no reason why anyone would ever consider giving this topic its own encyclopedia article. This is a genuine example of the culture of celebrity over-inflating a person’s long-term significance; per the arguments laid out at WP:RECENTISM, this article ought to be deleted. Keep in mind that recentism being rampant doesn’t make it correct. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge- deleting the information would be a disservice to wikipedia, but it probably doesn't need to be a standalone article. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Something else I wanted to add- we do not currently have an article on the Resignation of Richard Nixon, which was quite frankly a bigger event than Ms. Palin's resignation. The topic of Nixon's resignation is handled in separate articles related to him. I'm not trying to use an other stuff does/doesn't exist argument, merely trying to draw a parallel between the two to give this debate some perspective. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge anything useful to Sarah_Palin, and delete the rest. To give the early resignation of a minor Governor its own article gives WP:UNDUE weight to its significance, and is WP:NOTNEWS --Saalstin (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - i just saw the box on the article - "This article is part of a series about Sarah Palin" - holy moly! its the sarahpedia!  The article is ridiculously in-depth (do we really need to know what each individual pundit said about her resignation, though I appreciate the effort?), over time I would suspect Sarah's coverage here will be more condensed.--Milowent (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (per Saalstin) I agree that this is recentism and needless detail. The useful content can be comfortably merged with the main article. Hekerui (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Milowent. This is far beyond the whole WP:NEWS thing. JBsupreme (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In what way is this "far beyond the whole WP:NEWS thing"? The fact that this event was a few months ago does not automatically disqualify the article from being deleted under WP:NOTNEWS. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Simply, it was a very notable event. While I agree with the above comments that contributors to this article could have done all this work on articles of vastly more lasting significance, that doesn't mean that these efforts should now be undone. WP:NOTPAPER applies here. Gruntler (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What do you think made this "a very notable event"? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply 1) I'd argue that any time a US state's governorship changes hands for any reason it's a notable event. This is why we routinely have long, detailed, full articles on state-level elections. Sometimes this event can be covered adequately within other articles, but it should always be covered in some way. 2) Palin is much, much more famous than most governors--the only current state governor who might be more famous is Schwarzenegger. It's a much bigger deal for Palin to suddenly resign than if John Hoeven had resigned. 3) The event got a deluge of national news coverage--NYT front page, network news, etc. 4) This was an extremely unusual type of resignation, without any recent precedent that I am aware of.Gruntler (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. Numerous governors in U.S. history have resigned for various reasons, and there hasn't been an article on each event. And many of those resignations have gotten a deluge of national news coverage, regardless of whether that governor was as famous as Palin. For example, there isn't an article on the 2004 resignation of New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, even though that event was the subject of a deluge of national news coverage. Why not? WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that it could be adequately covered in the James McGreevey article – which it has been. Again, this is just one example, but the McGreevey resignation is arguably more deserving of an article than this one because there was an accompanying scandal, as there was when Eliot Spitzer resigned (see Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal). And your contention that this was an unprecedented sort of resignation is basically an opinion and has little to do with the notability of the subject (in fact, that is barely broached in the article). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In most cases of resignation, there isn't a specific article because there is a full and detailed article on some event which is very closely related to the resignation, usually a scandal. In effect, an article explaining the scandal is the same thing as an article explaining the circumstances of the resignation (as in the case of Spitzer). Anyway, WP:OTHERCRAP goes both ways. It might have been *better* if the "resignation" section of the Jim McGreevey article had been broken out into a new article--the coverage in the McGreevey article takes up as much space as everything else he did as governor put together! In general, if Palin's resignation is covered and other governor's scandals and resignations aren't, then the problem is with the lack of coverage of the other governors. A governor's resignation--any governor's resignation--easily passes WP:GNG. Gruntler (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough; my main concern is that undue emphasis is not placed on Palin over other politicians of similar stature due to her celebrity status. In any case, it appears that we're headed towards a "merge" consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge It seems Mrs Palin is going to be with us for a while, and the main article is big enough as is, but I'd rather see this merged and cleaned up. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to main Palin article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Other than providing jokes to late-night comedians about her quitting half-way through her term, her resignation has not been notable and will be forgotten in time. At most it warrants a tiny section in Palin's article.  TJ   Spyke   16:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into main Palin article. There's no need for a separate article about this incident. Lady  of  Shalott  16:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the nominator's statement that much of the information in this article "would be culled out of the main article...."  That's precisely why it shouldn't be merged.  It's a good example of the use of summary style to accommodate different readers' interests.  Some readers of the Palin bio will be curious about the resignation and will want more detail than can conveniently be included in the main article. JamesMLane t c 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - major speech watched live by over 5,000 people, and millions on the news; onging discussion in the legitimate media indicates probable, but not certain, encyclopedic value. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge after trim per WP:UNDUE — Ched : ?  20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge back to main article. Are we supposed to have a new article every time a prominent person moves on to a new stage in their career?  If she were to announce her candidacy for President in 2012, would we then have something entitled "Announcement by Sarah Palin of Intention to Run for President"?  This is why we have the policy WP:NEWS, because most events are not that significant a month later.  Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Summary style this is a spin-off from the main article. It adds material that would be too detailed to include in the main article - and that article is already quite large. The nominator's reasoning that "Sarah Palin is not a very important figure in United States history" would disqualify 99% of the biographies - e.g. most soccer players. The test for inclusion is not that the figure be important in history; the test is that the subject be notable. This article easily meets the test of notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That's apples and oranges, Sbowers3. I'm not arguing that Palin is undeserving of an article. I'm arguing that the subject of this article, an event in Palin's life, is undeserving of an article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep as valid spin off from main article that is well sourced and continues to be discussed. I don't have any strong objection to merging. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. An intriguing, arguably unprecedented high-profile resignation that shook the US political landscape.--The lorax (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, but delete extraneous or undue content. This event, in the grand scheme of things, was not notable enough to warrant its own article, even given the unusually pervasive media attention that surrounds Sarah Palin.  My guess is that all of this content in the main article would have been rightly problematic due to wp:undue, but the same issue exists with (or may even be amplified by) the separate article, just with fewer eyes paying attention.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, for same reasons given by Ched. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I recommend a SNOW Keep. AFD is about deletions, not merges. Based on all the above comments, there is no way this article is going to be deleted. If a Merge is appropriate, the way to do it is by proposals on the talk page(s), not here. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The real talk page is here. "SNOW Keep" generally requires that lots of people are saying "keep", and parliamentary procedure notwithstanding, AfD discussions frequently close with "The result was merge".   I think that most of us who are saying "merge" would rather the article be deleted, but there should be some time given to trim the fat and to leave relevant information in the regular article.  Assuming a merge happens, folks who are interested can talk about what's relevant enough to mention.  Step one will be to lose the entire "Reaction" section and the 12 lengthy quotes by everyone from David Frum to Rush Limbaugh.  Step two will be putting in links to her speech and to other news items that were being written about as they happened.  Good luck in '12, Sarah. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but ... develop it into an article . Smiling, but not joking. That it has not progressed is THE ONLY argument that should have been raised for having another time-wasting AfD so soon. Again, smiling but not joking. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are as unpersuasive now as they were last time (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter). Merge?, no. (See previous parenthetical.) [BEGIN SOAPBOX] Speaking as a rhetorical analyst, the rhetorical argument presented is: Sarah Palin is a flash in the pan ... Clearly the resignation of a flash in the pan is of momentary interest (news), certainly not historical ... because, um, Sarah Palin is flash in the pan.  Whether or not one is a fan of Sarah Palin, she, and her notable/controversial resignation (marking a surprising turning point in her career) is of more historical significance than huge swaths of what we cover in Wikipedia&mdash;not that our opinion on that matters, of course. Which is why such opinions should not be the basis for a time-wasting re-run Afd. BOTTOM LINE: Asserting WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM is not persuasive. Rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion of the historical significance of Sarah Palin is less so. HOWEVER (AS PER ABOVE) What is there (on the page) is NOT improving toward article-hood. Let us wave a stick at those who say "KEEP" to do something about that. (SOTTO VOCE) And yes, Ms Palin, I'll be happy to help you write your speeches, for a very reasonable fee&mdash;which will not include editing your Wikipedia articles, which costs extra, plus Jimbo's cut. :) META COMMENT If I'm going to have to waste my time on another time-wasting AfD, I'm gonna sure as heck have fun. I have. Cheers! -- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are as unpersuasive now as they were last time (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter)." I really resent the implications of that. I fully understand the complexities of the matter, and I am not the only one who has subscribed to those arguments. This AfD is not "rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion"; it is simply a fact that having articles like this over-inflates Palin's importance in American history. How many unsuccessful major-party nominees for Vice President can you name? Does Wikipedia cover their careers in the same excruciating detail with which it covers Palin's? The answer to the latter is no, of course not. It's recentism, plain and simple, and I find it hard to believe that you can't see that and somehow think that the recentism argument is "rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion." You joke about the flash in the pan thing, but frankly, in the broader history of the United States thus far, Sarah Palin is a flash in the pan. Try to be civil. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * re WP:CIVILITY Assertions have no rights to be treated with civility. :) NOTE: If I had said, e.g, That well-known-for-silly-assertion-offering ...Willoughby is at it again, then civility would be an issue. Compare Obama/Wilson (and who got in trouble). :) AND Implying that one position is more firmly grounded in knowledge than another, is normal rhetorical boilerplate (to which only those who are less rhetorically knowledgeable would take offense.) LOL. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's just say this: "[All the people commenting with that opinion that differs from mine are wrong] (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter)" is probably not the most collaborative way of going about summarily dismissing the differing opinions of others. :P  I've read your position, I feel I understand it, and I feel as though I understand the "full complexities of the matter," and I still happen to disagree with you.  It's not that I believe you're failing to understand the full complexities of the matter.  I just believe you reached a different conclusion.  Anyway, this is all meta to this discussion, and while I thought your comment might be an effort to be a tad bit witty, I didn't feel offended...  user: J  aka justen (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear J FYI: When I came to the page to post my wits out, you had just posted your vote ... So, specifically to avoid offending you right beneath you ... I delayed my message until other votes intervened (?). (smiling, but not joking) Surely allusions to paid editing and aspersions of Jimbo corruption should earn extra-point bonuses&mdash;and indicate the appropriate Smile-when-you-say-that, mister tone. Yet, I will posit (?) that from the perspective of effective collaborate discussion... providing negative feedback to the speaker is vital (hopefully with appropriate aforementioned tone.) E.G., TO WIT, I.E.(?): Discouraging unnecessary AfDs is a "social good.," which I gladly provide without fee, or thanks. :) FINALLY (LET US PRAY) The assertion that some have a more complex understanding of the matter (and that someone is me) is made in the context ... of a lot of words ... from which a judgment can be made of the alleged superiority of the quality of perception. I'm sure you all have. LOL THE END. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to the article on Sarah Palin. I am not certain why this warrants a standalone article. It seems like a single news event and should be part of the larger Palin biography. Warrah (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it is very common for 21st century national figures to have articles for each stage of their life in order to keep the main aritcle to a reasonable WP:SIZE.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Example of Recentism Sole Soul (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - To quote from Recentism: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". I don't agree that an article going into great detail is sufficient reason to delete it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Sarah Palin per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This is really only worthy of a paragraph or two in Palin's article, we certainly don't need extensive lists of opinions from various pundits and talking heads. Glass  Cobra  15:20, 14 October 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.