Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Masked Avengers' prank on 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   no consensus. No consensus for either outright deletion or merging, that is. I suggest that the merger discussion be revived, on the article talk page, after the media spotlight has shifted elsewhere and the measure of the lasting significance of this event can be more easily taken.  Sandstein  16:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Masked Avengers&

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

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. Zsero (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hangon: (copied from below; it was suggested that as nominator I should put this right under my initial nomination.) The stories coming out now about conflict within the McCain-Palin campaign staff, apparently including some conflict about this call, may make it more notable than it was before. These stories are just breaking, and it will be impossible to assess their importance for at least several days.  It's probably still not notable for an article all of its own, but let's put the discussion on hold for a few days, to let this play out.  -- Zsero (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the case for keeping the article was clear-cut from the first day, and is now well established here, but these references should finish it absolutely. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up to Mike Serfas' useful citations, I would like to add one more in the post-election publications on top of those added above and below. Staff writer Sasha Nagy (Globe and Mail) lists the prank in her "Weekly Top 10" . J Readings (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge It has been widely reported as showing weakness in the Palin campaign staff, to forward a prank call to the candidate, and a failure on Palin's part not to quickly realize that the fake accent and the subject matter of the call, such as discussion of the pornographic "Nailin' Pailin" video, showed that it was not really a call from Sarkozy. It could have its own article, or it could be included in the article on her 2008 campaign. Edison (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "fake accent"...you mean the Québécois accents of the Masked Avengers is so marked that Palin should have realized it when they attempted to mimic Sarcozi's Euro-French? $\sim$ Justmeherenow     06:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, when they pranked Jacques Chirac in the guise of Stephen Harper, Chirac apparently failed to notice that the French accent of his caller was supposed to be coming from a native speaker of English. And when they pranked Britney Spears in the guise of Celine Dion, Spears apparently failed to notice that the person calling was a man impersonating a female voice. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While that guideline certainly merits consideration, it is a guideline and not a policy. It's a guideline that should be allowed to bend to permit an article on this story, because, justifiably or otherwise, it has already got quite an extraordinary amount of coverage. Consider, among others: Times of Malta story, Times of India story, China Daily story, CTV (Canada) story, Reuters story at Yahoo, Bloomberg story at Yahoo, Fox News story, UPI story, Perth Now story, AFP story at iafrica.com, BBC story, Guardian, story, Welt Online story, edited transcript of the conversation, at the Guardian. Note that these include the most respected of news sources, and that most, perhaps all, are medium-sized articles, not just briefly-noteds. Probably this little caper has no great historical significance (and of course the same could be said for a huge percentage of the content of en:WP); however, Palin is frequently discussed as a likely future President of the US, and whether as a Prez or as a Veep may very well meet [the real] Sarkozy, a meeting that would undoubtedly bring up mentions by columnists of the previous pseudo-encounter, which in turn would impel en:WP's readers to look up just what it was that transpired. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC) tinkered with 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I don't intend to keep adding more to the list, but since the NYT is sometimes said to be the newspaper of [US] record, here you go. And before anyone dismisses this as a partisan non-story only whipped up by liberals and foreigners, here you have the AP story as reproduced by the Washington Times, which recently came out in open editorial support of McCain/Palin. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many newspapers reported it, they're all part of one "short burst of news reports about a single event". This is an "odd-spot" sort of story, good for a chuckle, but of no lasting interest.  In other words, precisely what that clause is meant to exclude.  -- Zsero (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very likely that you are right. Certainly it's hard to believe that this will ever be more than a footnote to a history of the campaign, of Canadian radio, or of anything else. But we can't yet be certain that it will be of no lasting interest; we'll only know this later. &para; An obvious answer to this would be: "So let's wait and see whether an intrinsically silly story such as this is of lasting interest, and IFF it is, then give the green light to writing it up." However, it has already been written up. Granted that nothing (or almost nothing) is ever really deleted from en:WP (it's merely made invisible) and thus that if first "deleted" this story can later be resuscitated, deletion-then-resuscitation is laborious. If you are right, and this little story turns out to have no lasting interest, the article can later be deleted: letting it survive now needn't imply that it should survive forever. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge This event is pretty well covered in the article Masked_Avengers. No need to duplicate coverage in seperate article. Dman727 (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I realize that this probably fails WP:NOTNEWS, but this event is notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Public image and reception of Sarah Palin. It fails NOT#NEWS, but can live there per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been created as a separate article because it was removed from Parodies of Sarah Palin on the grounds that it wasn't a parody. It definitely doesn't require its own independent article, as it obviously fails WP:NOTNEWS — but does WP:NCC apply here too? You betcha! It did get wide enough WP:RS/WP:V media coverage that it's perfectly valid content somewhere. Merge to either Parodies of Sarah Palin, where it was located originally, or to public image and reception of Sarah Palin per Jclemens if the fact that it isn't strictly speaking a parody of her — never mind that the first paragraph of the parody article includes "satire" in its description, and this certainly falls under that rubric — is convincing to people. But it's not a plain delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fact check: I don't blame anyone for not having noticed this, but actually this material, or something close to it, started out at Sarah Palin. See this discussion thread, in which some people peremptorily declare that it's non-notable or trivial, others say that it is worth a note but is done in undeserved detail, and others again justify its inclusion. Zsero (the nominator of this AfD) was a vocal contributor. Thinking that the material was worthwhile, and kind of parody-related, I tossed it into Parodies of Sarah Palin. (Zsero later removed it on the grounds that it wasn't a parody.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Masked Avengers, where their other pranks are referenced. This is a significant moment in their career, but not necessarily in Palin's. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears that some of the commenters here may support keeping this article possibly as a way to score political points against Sarah Palin. If so, that would violate WP:NPOV by placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on this event, besides being an example of Recentism. I note, by way of comparison, that nobody ever created an article titled The Masked Avengers' prank on Jacques Chirac, even though there were sources for that from at least four continents: Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled to see a vote (that isn't a vote) in one direction justified by suspicions about the motivation of some of the votes (that aren't votes) in the other direction. As for "recentism", you are of course very right. However, it's only one factor. Healthily or unhealthily, the anglophone masses are (or until very recently were) obsessed with Palin. They were never more than mildly interested in Chirac -- after all, he's from somewhere called "France"; is that the one to the left of Germany or the one to the right? -- except perhaps when Britain's Best Loved Tabloid called him (and illustrated him as) a ver or when he had the temerity to disagree with the democratically-elected Leader of the Free World about putting a contract on Iraq. Anyway, the conversation would have been in "French", that obscure language that loses elections for pantywaist pinkos like John Kerry. But really, if the conversation with Chirac was of such a wide interest as you claim, do feel very free to write more about it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Masked Avengers. It made international news, but it's not big enough or really that significant to be in Palin's article. Qwerty (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Masked Avengers per WP:NOT. This will only be remembered (if at all) in the context of the Masked Avengers. – sgeureka t•c 12:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on a merge to "Masked Avengers" There's certainly some merit to this suggestion. However, I see two drawbacks. First, there's already a fair amount of arguably noteworthy commentary on the prank call and its reception, and what (if anything) this tells the world about Palin; it's not unlikely that there will be more commentary, or metacommentary (how sad it is that newspapers dwell on this trivia, how good it is that the voters ignore this trivia, etc). Granted that such talk would be peripheral to Palin, about whom there's plenty to say that's more important, some of this would be a lot more about Palin than about the "Avengers". Secondly, even without summaries of commentary (let alone metacommentary), there's already quite a bit more to say about this prank than about the others; perhaps people would want to cut it down to size not only in order to avoid verbosity and trivia (both admirable motives) but also in order to avoid overweighing the "Avengers" article (unfortunate). -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability easily demonstrated. Multiple suggested merge targets make merging a difficult proposition, because of the need to co-ordinate all these bits.  To effectively present in an encyclopaedic fashion, an independent article seems to be the best bet. Wily D  13:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Masked Avengers, where the event is already covered. That article is pretty short, and this event, while it had some mainstream media coverage, is not that outstanding compared to other pranks conducted by the Avengers. VG &#x260E; 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cmt - It is actually more notable because who got pranked than who did the pranking. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The same can be said about all the other interview pranks they've done. I have no objection to mentioning the prank in some article about Sarah Palin, and linking it from there, but most of the details about this prank probably do not belong in an article about Palin per WP:UNDUE. VG &#x260E; 16:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT. And this is not even remotely news.SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reality/argumentation check. Er, hello? First, if this were not even remotely news, then how should WP:NOT be applied? Secondly, if this is not even remotely news, then how might one explain the coverage (laboriously listed above) by AFP, AP, Bloomberg, Reuter, and (if you take it seriously) UPI? (And those are just the agencies.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere per Bearcat, or Keep per WilyD & Hoary. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly warrants its own article now. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Public image and reception of Sarah Palin or Keep. This is more notable for the subject being Palin, than it is for the radio program that did it.  When merged it should remain its own section as the details as to how it was conducted, and the results are also notable. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not believe that it is appropriate for an AfD discussion to mandate a merge of this article - it clearly has sufficient sourced content to stand on its own, the target of a merge is uncertain, and a merge would face strong resistance (i.e. immediate reversion) at the target article from many of the same people calling for this deletion.  It probably should be merged, but that is a discussion for the article talk page.
 * Several people have suggested that NOT#NEWS applies here and at other Palin articles, but let us look at the scripture: "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." We are not covering a wedding announcement here, but a top story in newspapers from literally six continents.  The policy also says that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", but we are not trying to 'emphasize' breaking news, only to slip two sentences (in my version) past an unrelenting campaign of immediate reversions and deletions. Mike Serfas (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a second&mdash;Did you just say that you're intentionally trying to use this article to evade consensus elsewhere? Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus, but several editors are making their quota of reversions. Besides, your link to WP:Forum shopping describes a policy against using multiple methods of arbitration, not addition of content to different articles.  There is reason to believe that even if information is viewed as peripheral to Sarah Palin that it may be viewed as germane to any of these other articles. Mike Serfas (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, that was an inapt citation. Point I was trying to make is that if it does belong somewhere, fight for it to go there, rather than just sticking it somewhere it doesn't fit well just because there's no opposition to it. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? As far as I can see, the relevent longstanding consensus is WP:N, and attempts to delete that are end runs around that through blatant misapplication of WP:NEWS (no reading of WP:NEWS could seriously justify deletion here).  Or do you read something else? Wily D  18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While there's obviously not much reason for the main article on Sarah Palin herself to contain this much detail on a radio prank, it seems fairly clear to quite a few people that the only real reason that it's also getting removed from articles where it does quite reasonably belong, such as Parodies of Sarah Palin or Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, is a partisan attempt to protect Palin from possible public embarrassment, based on a misreading of WP:NEWS which forgets that WP:NNC too. I have to agree with WilyD on this one; it's not forum shopping so much as an attempt to counter some people's seeming determination to bury any mention of this prank from appearing anywhere in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it belongs in Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, which is my belief, then the right thing to do is insert it there--which you will have my help in doing if needed--rather than seeking to put a 1E article together. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, merging isn't really an AfD outcome anyhow, but ... several "plausible" merge targets have been suggested, which suggests that a seperate article is needed to present the thing coherently. "1E" articles are perfectly ordinary.  In the extreme cases it gets perfectly silly - but this article is what you're supposed to do in single events involving peopel; you're supposed to write an article about the event, rather than distort the person's bio to fit it - further that both Palin and the Radio Jockeys are notable and should be linked to this event (which is also notable per WP:N) suggests this is the most sensible way to organise content to present it intelligibly to the reader.  Wily D  19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Masked Avengers. Not worth its own article, nor a mention in Palin's. Glass  Cobra  21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and try to keep a sense of proportion. If the stupid woman fell for a prank then it's notable whether she gets elected or not.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stupid about falling for such a prank. Note that Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Jacques Chirac, none of them stupid, all fell for the same prank. What do you think you would do if you got a call like that?  That's why it's not notable or remarkable in any way, no matter how many newspapers reported it for a bit of a chuckle.  -- Zsero (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I got a call like that, I'd immediately recognize the name Johnny Halliday and it wouldn't progress much further. But Palin's brain was probably dealing with more and bigger issues than mine would be, so I don't rush to call her underinformed or inattentive, let alone stupid. Can we please agree, however, that our own beliefs (if we have them) that she was underinformed or inattentive (let alone stupid) -- or that her staff was inattentive or whatever -- are beside the point in this AfD? -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This has no place in the AfD. Take it to talk, please? Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my main point; sorry if it was obscured by the other stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Now that the election's over, can anybody say with a straight face and a sober mind that this is an item of enduring historical notability? I thought not. Stick a paragraph reference to it inside The Masked Avengers, and have done. RayAYang (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To your question: Perhaps it depends on what you mean by notability. Real, substantial notability? No of course not, but (quite aside from the opulent article on the "Paylin" porn film), I give you Socks (cat) and Buddy (dog). Now that the election's over, the 5 November Guardian article by Oliver Burkeman "Momentous, spine-tingling, absurd: an election like never before" puts the election campaign into finishing-line perspective, puts Palin into perspective within it, and puts this little event into that perspective for Palin. This article is very opinionated and unflattering about Palin and no doubt many readers here would passionately disagree with any and all of it. But whatever you think of Burkeman's take, there you have it: one journalist's wrap of the whole months-long, multimillion dollar affair that doesn't even mention John Edwards yet takes the trouble to laugh away this phone call. Yes it's insignificant, but it's memorably insignificant. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First it has to be notable, and that hasn't been established. If it's not reported again then it was never notable, no matter how many papers reported it the first time. -- Zsero (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Zsero's comment strikes me as a fundamentally flawed argument for this AfD. On the one hand, we're being asked to delete it because it's not notable enough. When multiple articles are proffered to demonstrate notability, the all-too-predictable rebuttal becomes "temporary notability" has only been established. At this point, the entire line of "deletion" argumentation needs to be disregarded immediately by the closing admin because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I think it is fair to state that those requesting deletion on the basis of "temporary notability" cannot possibly see into the future to make that judgment. Personally, I think the original nominator for deletion was too quick to file the paperwork for this AfD. Regards, J Readings (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got that exactly backwards. AFDs don't have to prove non-notability, articles have to prove that they are notable, and a single burst of newspaper reports, immediately after the event, is not enough to do that.  Because we have no crystal ball, we can't know whether it will ever be reported again, which might make it notable.  Nor is there any reason to think that it will be.  Therefore notability has not been established, and it should be deleted.  -- Zsero (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Notability requires proof of significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. In addition to the sources already listed in the article, a simple review of LexisNexis generated coverage indicates both the significance of such coverage and the multiple sources reinforcing them. (NB: At this point, I don't think it will be necessary for me to list the dozens of titles dedicated to this subject in English alone). That said, to counter-argue, as Zsero has done, that the coverage is temporary requires good timing. This AfD was poorly thought-out, in my opinion. Had the nominator waited several weeks or months in order to demonstrate in good faith that it was a flash-in-the-pan, one could make a compelling argument. Right now, the argument is tenuous at best based on a crystal ball and apparently the number of keep and merge votes underscores that point quite clearly. J Readings (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.   A short burst of news reports is all we've had so far, so how has notability been established?  It is up to you to establish notability, not up to me to establish lack thereof.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to list for you, Zsero, all of the articles in the reliable mainstream media on this subject as generated by LexisNexis and Factiva? It's a waste of my time, yours and everyone else's. On top of that, you keep avoiding the main point: the timing of this AfD was poorly thought-out. You cannot deny this point when you bring up temporal qualifiers like "short burst of news reports" to an event that cannot be shown in good faith to be a flash-in-the-pan yet. It is reasonable to assume that journalists will continue to write about Sarah Palin, as she is a notable figure, and this particular subject in connection with her, as they touch on her alleged gaffes, blunders, misstatements and other parodies adding to its already clear demonstration of notability through multiple reliable mainstream sources offering significant coverage. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many articles were written on it, because they were all part of that one burst of reportage immediately after it happened, and WP:NOBJ says explicitly that that does not establish notability. So what, in your opinion, does establish the notability of this prank?  Of course Palin is a notable subject, and will continue to be in the news for years to come; but what crystal ball tells you that this incident will ever again achieve significant coverage?  How much coverage do their other pranks get, after the initial reports, other than to be listed every time they get a new victim?  -- Zsero (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, Zsero is the one who reverted to maintain a description that Ivanna Trump is in a relationship with the owner of the New York Observer and is converting to Judaism. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And your point is? A person's relationship status and religion are certainly notable aspects of their biographies, and a religious conversion is especially notable.  Why would anyone want to omit it? -- Zsero (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting comment and I've been thinking it over for some hours. I'd never previously heard of Ivanka Trump. I read that she joined forces with Dynamic Diamond Corp. [...] to design and introduce a line of jewelry at the brand's first flagship retail store called 'Ivanka Trump' on Madison Avenue. If she designed the jewelry, I'd expect the article to say this; since it doesn't quite say this, I start to guess that she doesn't design the jewelry; if she's not designing the jewelry, I don't know what she's doing. (Furthermore, I don't know how the brand's first flagship retail store called 'Ivanka Trump' differs from "a store called 'Ivanka Trump'"; and it's unclear whether the "line" has been introduced, and if it hasn't been then when it will be.) All in all Trump's notability is a mystery to me, but I see that the NYT has run an article on her, and I note that her father is famous and that, for all the pieties about meritocracy, the US craves a royalty -- so all in all I wouldn't start an AfD on her. &para; That said, I can't see any reason why her relationships or religious beliefs, or changes thereof, would be of any concern. Picasso's relationships had a direct effect on his paintings, Chagall's religion had a direct effect on his; but how should such things impact the work of a jewelry designer/quasi-designer/non-designer? Demographically, Judaism is a pretty normal religion in the US: if by contrast she were converting to, say, Vodoun or Mithraism or the Church of the Subgenius this would be remarkable. And being in a relationship with is curiously vague, even when the context makes it clear that it's a romantic relationship. The only way an interest in all of this makes sense to me is when I put it in quasi-royal dynastic perspective: the British "house of Windsor" is a high-spending soap opera (far outlasting the workaday Mrs Dale's Diary) and I suppose the Trumps are too, their personal looks, peccadilloes and dramas being what keep them slebs. &para; But maybe this is just me. For you, this kind of thing is "notable" or "especially notable". De gustibus..... -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We have already had "more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event"; we've had Burkeman's article, which isn't a news report. I intended to look for further examples of retrospective commentary but was unable to do so, as even limiting google hits to the last 24 hours lets in too many news pages that are slightly older but that have updated ads (not to mention blogospherical ramblings and forum gibberish). Still, all those "updated" substantive pages served to remind me that the shortness of this burst of news reports is here counterbalanced by the extent of that burst: here in Pretoria News, here in Chicago Tribune, here in the New Zealand Herald, and so forth: all of which are articles of substantial length. &para; As for the forum gibberish, it's full of unexpected, er, insights. One "poprox" observes: "This interview just shows that no one really gives a damn about Canada." -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Oneevent does not apply to people of international level significance. It applies to exclude local beauty pageant winners that got in 2 or more local papers, insignificant people being accused of curious crimes, and odd human interest coincidences.  If people interpret it for things like this, its time we rewrote it.  DGG (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I agree with you. J Readings (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this call for a rewrite. Specifically, I request an "affirmative defense" - that under this policy a news event for which a contributor documents reliable sources on three or more continents shall not be considered for deletion. Mike Serfas (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- per above rationales. Obvious notability.JJJ999 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the notability requirements as outlined in the guidelines. LexisNexis and Factiva generate literally dozens of articles in English alone (not to mention foreign languages) from reliable mainstream sources discussing at length the substance of the prank, thus highlighting the significant coverage for this notable figure. The AfD was filed prematurely, especially when articles continue to be written on the subject of the prank and its connection to other alleged Sarah Palin gaffes, blunders, misstatements, etc. I also agree with DGG that the "Not News" policy was designed to avoid doing harm to less-than-notable figures known for just one event, thereby immortalizing that small event forever on the internet. It does not (and probably never will) apply to well-known public figures and if multiple users mistakenly start to read it as saying something else, the policy most likely will be re-written to avoid any future misunderstandings. J Readings (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some may believe that this particular prank is notable for what it says about they perceive as the lack of sophistication on Palin's part, or something like that. But the Masked Avengers article doesn't mention that any of the other celebrities they have pranked in the past caught on before being told of the prank. So is Palin less sophisticated than the others, or is she just one in a line of prank victims, all of whom were successfully duped? If the latter, that would tend to mitigate against having a separate article for this incident. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't answer your question; but, since you ask, stories such as this one suggest to me that she may have been surprisingly underinformed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the sort of reasoning that we should not be using to decide deletions. Our goal here is to index and summarize the knowledge of the world, not to express our judgments, except to the degree that our interests influence where we direct our attention. Mike Serfas (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hangon: The stories coming out now about conflict within the McCain-Palin campaign staff, apparently including some conflict about this call, may make it more notable than it was before. These stories are just breaking, and it will be impossible to assess their importance for at least several days.  It's probably still not notable for an article all of its own, but let's put the discussion on hold for a few days, to let this play out.  -- Zsero (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, the election's over. Any assertion that the notability of this one event is going to increase now that Palin is an also-ran is pretty hard to swallow. Jclemens (talk)
 * Jclemens, you better start swallowing because journalists keep publishing articles on it after the election. In fact, here is an interesting one: The San Antonio Express-News just published an article after the election by Jennifer Lloyd entitled "Our 10 favorite election moments" (p. 19) in which this particular prank on Palin is ranked No. 1 appears at the top of their list. J Readings (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what I think you're referring to (though of course dead-trees and web versions need not be the same). This little kerfuffle does indeed come at the top of the list, but -- Ahem! -- it's not ranked number 1 it's a bit misleading to say that it's ranked number one; instead, the list is in reverse chronological order, so it comes first merely because it's the newest. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC) ..... reworded 03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A fair niggle. I wrote it too quickly. I'll reword the above comment for the sake of precision, but it changes little. It's still considered one of the their 10 favorite moments and considered -- as Lloyd thinks -- part of what "defined the election cycle." I won't be surprised if other newspapers publish further stories on this issue. J Readings (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And "ranking" can be (reverse) chronological. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another post-election opinion. The Blade (newspaper) published in Toledo, Ohio, provides business, financial and related news as well as regional news. It's formerly known as The Blade (KRTBN). In any case, they published an article the day after the election calling the Masked Avengers' prank on Palin "unforgettable." Or to be more precise, in case anyone wants to know, staff writer Kirk Baird considers the prank part of the "unforgettables" of the 2008 campaign. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be right, Zsero. As the nominator, you may wish to duplicate this comment of yours, or write something similar, immediately under the nomination. (Incidentally, I'm puzzled by the widely quoted {example} term knowledgeability; I wonder if this was just a slip of the tongue or instead is to knowledge what truthiness is to truth.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the state of being knowledgeable.   Knowledge is something one possesses more or less of; if one possesses much knowledge, one is knowledgeable, and others might remark on ones knowledgeability.  Merriam-Webster,  American Heritage, and WordNet all list it.  -- Zsero (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for so ably knowledgabilitizing me, Zsero! I really must take the trouble to look words up in a dictionary from time to time. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This prank is notable for showing Palin's naviete.  The pranksters have said all their other prank victims figured out it's a prank, except for Britney Spears (and Palin).  They actually said it was "frightening" that she never suspected it's a prank.   For someone who could have been a heartbeat away from the U.S. presidency, such naivete is truly frightening.  When you read the actually transcript, you can see amazing insights into her, such as when the prankster is joking about killing being so much fun.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.210.229 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that in Palin's case, the standard trope was one elderly heartbeat away from the Presidency. But you are (and perhaps I am) editorializing here: the question is not the significance that you or I ascribe to the call (although this might determine whether or not we choose to bother to add to the article or to not-vote on it here); it's instead (in part) the significance ascribed to it by others to whose opinions we, uh, ascribe significance. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 9 November 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.