Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Nailin' Paylin?


 * 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   Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Who&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Violates WP:Use common sense. Porn films are made about many topics and they are (almost) all trivial. WP is a respected source of information on vitally important political topics. This article unfairly makes it look like we are out to get Ms Palin, which could undermine our reputation as a source of fair and objective information on people and issues that really matter. Borock (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:GNG. This article has plenty of sources and appears to be notable. Dislike for content is not a reason to delete. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion criteria. The amount of coverage makes this notable times over.  Grsz 11 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A vote to keep is a vote for Sarah Palin for president in 2012. ;-) -Borock (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. What kind of argument is that? One moment you are saying the article is anti-Palin, and now you say it will win her votes. I suspect this AfD isn't being taken seriously by its proposer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to be more clear. Article seems to be anti-Palin, Palin supporters will say WP is anti-Palin, WP's reputation as being a source of fair and objective information will be damaged in their eyes, Palin supporters will be more motivated to work for her campaign while discounting legitimate criticism of her, that might be enough to decide the election in her favor making her the 45th president of the United States. On the other hand it might not work out this way. You never know. Borock (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointless speculation. We are discussing 'Who's Nailin' Paylin?' here, not Sarah Palin's political ambitions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The arguments presented for deletion are of little relevance to Wikipedia policy, and the article sourcing demonstrates that the film has received enough attention from the mainstream media to meet notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable porn flick. Really bad deletion rationale. Garion96 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources establish obvious notability. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a current BLP noticeboard thread Inclusion of porn film in Sarah Palin that may have inspired this AfD nom. While a dime-a-dozen exploitation of this sort does not by itself merit inclusion in the Sarah Palin BLP, this video is as notable (per WP:GNG and the amount of attention is seems to get) as this sort of things ever gets. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Notable, no need to mention in article Sarah Palin though. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely notable, worthiness of a mention on other pages is not a topic for this DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Since I am planning to vote for Sarah in 2012 and anything that helps her is good. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It meets our guidelines for notability, it just isn't biographically relevant to Sarah Palin.  jæs (talk)  18:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No need to mention in main Palin bio, but include in Public image of Sarah Palin, to which Parodies of Sarah Palin (the best home for a reference to the film) was merged. JamesMLane t c 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Hold on folks... Let's focus on the actual article topic in question for a moment... is there any indication that Who& passes Notability (films)? Forget the whole "it denegrates Sarah Palin" argument... as a film, is this film notable?  I don't think so. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to have quite a few references. Does film notability encompass porn? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable.  Whether to reference it in other Palin articles is not properly in the scope of this AfD.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a legitimately sourced, notable piece of political satire. Qworty (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In pt.wikipedia, the film's notability has been discussed in its GA nomination, and all the sources seem to confirm this. Its sequels, clearly, aren't as notable (see the other page, in portuguese), but the original film deserves its own article, and a mention in both Public image of Sarah Palin and Template:Sarah Palin, IMHO, but I understand how controversial this would look for you americans. In Brazil, it wasn't considered offensive, being mentioned as one of the reactions to the campaign, along with the Masked Avengers prank. Maddox (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (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.