Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla librarian letter of termination

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 delete. WP:COATRACK and wholly unencyclopedic seicer | talk | contribs 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla librarian letter of termination

Possibly the finest example of a WP:COATRACK I've ever encountered. Acroterion _(talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because not only does the article seem fragmented and not much about a letter at all, it is also thoroughly unencyclopedic because it's about an insignificant incident. Stijndon (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, perhaps you could explain what section of WP:COATRACK you believe this falls under. As you know the Palin article is protected, so no new information can be included there. The present Palin article mentions Palin's intention to dismiss the librarian, and her inquiries as to removing books. I assume the editors' consensus is that that information is worthy of Wikipedia. Wasilla librarian letter of termination elaborates on it in the only way possible, in a separate article, and it presents information that has broken since. It does so along the lines of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. In the same way, a separate article was suggested for the librarian's notice of termination, and I acted on it.

Well, let's see. The article's about a letter of termination to a librarian, which apparently mentions no specific circumstances. Then ... it's all about some possible effort, not clearly expressed, on the part of Sarah Palin to remove library books she deemed unwholesome. Maybe. The appropriate title of the article is probably Vague allegations of intimidation for possible censorship of library materials by Sarah Palin. That she may have views of this sort is not very shocking, but nothing really happened. If she'd advocated issuing 12-year olds copies of The Catcher in the Rye or Judy Blume books, that'd be article-worthy, in the context of her politics. Acroterion _(talk) 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you think that way, Acroterion. The letter does mention circumstances. Palin said she did not feel she had the full support of the librarian. The only difference the press has covered is Emmons's refusal to remove books from the library, and the letter comes after a clear effort on Palin's part to see if the librarian was amenable to censorship. Three times in the first few months of her tenure as mayor, Palin asked Emmons about removing books from the library, three times Emmons refused, and twice she was sent a letter. The first letter asked for her resignation, the second told her that her job would end in two weeks. Only after the community rose up to support Emmons did Palin back off. Just because Palin did not accomplish what she set out to do doesn't mean that nothing happened. A lot happened. The newspapers thought it was important enough to write about at the time, and more so now. You mention the context of Palin's politics, but this is her politics, and her politics are news. We don't have many examples of what she's like, so the few we do have, even if they took place in rural small-town Alaska, are significant -- if only due to her sudden rise. Like.liberation 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the references, you'll note the piece in the Anchorage Daily News, published today, citing Emmons herself as saying that Palin approached her several times about removing books from the library. Both facts in italics are new and deserve note, given that Anne Kilkenny is qualified with the epithet "democrat" and that multiple sources, which include the librarian herself, constitute more substantial evidence. Like.liberation 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete. per WP:COATRACK Ronnotel (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and take it to the talk page of the protected article. Splinter articles about controversial news do not an encyclopedia make. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. The facts are not controversial, they are simply facts. They come from multiple sources and have been published in three vastly different newspapers (The Frontiersman, The Anchorage Daily News and The New York Times). They are not editorials nor do they have a bias, which is what I assume Acroterion perceives in this article.

The incident itself was an important one at the beginning of Palin's political career. If she committed controversial acts, then those should be on the record. Her early and persistent interest in censorship bears on her political views, and is therefore relevant to her present status as vice-presidential nominee. When one reads an article on a politician, that is precisely the kind of information one is looking for. Not the basketball teams or marijuana or pregnancies. That's ancillary.

So if this article is deleted, then the content of it should be included in Sarah Palin's bio. Like.liberation 23:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above. I'm for Obama and Biden all the way, and I think they'd probably agree that this is precisely the kind of information that most people would consider pretty trivial. Mandsford (talk) 23:40, 4 September

2008 (UTC)

I don't think our political views should lend authority to our views in this discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted. The fact of the matter is, almost everything Palin did as mayor of Wasilla is trivial in terms of the consequences to the rest of us back then, for the simple reason that Wasilla's a very small town. But now she is the vice-presidential nominee, with just two years of gubernatorial experience, and many more years as mayor, so what she did in Wasilla is one of the only ways people can get an indication of the vice president she would be.

Now, one of her first forays into governing was to ask the librarian about removing books, and then to fire her when she refused. Let's imagine that happening in any of our towns. How would we feel? Would we draw conclusions about a politician based on that action? It seems like a meaningful incident, and one that deserves inclusion.

If Acroterion or anyone else has suggestions for how this should be stated, and where, please say so. Like.liberation 00:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The news pertains to a controversy. As such, presenting it in a splinter article is exactly what WP:COATRACK is about. Since you agree it belongs in the main article, take it back to the talk page there and work toward consensus. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you'll agree, Ningauble, that controversy is a subjective term. The news here pertains to a series of events that some deem significant. Significance should be a sufficient condition for an event to merit an article.

Articles necessarily overlap with each other, and to include all pertinent articles in any one main article would make it infinite and unreadable. So though I agree that some information contained in Wasilla librarian letter of termination should be in the Sarah Palin bio, I also believe that it deserves its own space, because there are several nuances that perhaps not everyone would want to read. I think some mention in the bio, with a link to a separate article, would strike the right balance.

But I thank you for the suggestion to have some of it included in the bio, and I've presented it on the discussion page.Like.liberation 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete Agreed... this is an excelent example of a WP:COATRACK--Pmedema (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coatrack and POV fork. Kelly ^hi! 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sarah Palin (in extremely cut-down form). This might be worthy of inclusion in the Palin article, but not notable enough for its own article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (Selectively merge) into the Sarah Palin article. Pare it down a bit. Has 2 refs, and the issue of library censorship is relevant to political philosophy of a politician. Not important enough for a standalone article, but part of a complete picture to provide a NPOV article. More important than her husband liking snowmobile racing. A merge argument is not a delete argument. Edison (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Read WP:SYNTH - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am familiar with it. It does not apply. The reliable sources in the article address the subject withouit the need for original research in the form of synthesis. Edison (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment "the issue of library censorship is relevant to political philosophy of a politician". Sounds very much like synthesis when you use these references to make a point about politics because you believe it to be relevant. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK. It fails the "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" test of WP:NOTNEWS as well - after the election it will be forgotten except by extreme partisans. Incident could maybe have a mention in Sarah Palin if consensus can be achieved that it's important enough. JohnCD (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pick a reason WP:COATRACK, fails WP:N and WP:V, non-encyclopedic, extremely unlikely search term, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOTNEWS, POV fork, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jasynnash2, you've given one word arguments, most of which are not valid. The article does not fail WP:N or WP:V. The events are clearly verifiable, and have been reported on at length, which should serve as evidence of their notability. The article on Palin has expanded drastically since she was selected as VP nominee, and most of the newsworthy events of her early political life have acquired greater significance, including this one, which has been reported on in Time, The New York Times and The Anchorage Daily News. If the McCain-Palin ticket is elected, it will acquire even greater import, and I think, JohnCD, that you would agree that the vice president's views on censorship and past interest in it is of significant and lasting historical interest and impact. I tried to make the article as NPOV as possible. If you have suggestions, please make them. Like.liberation 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

Okay. More than one word. It fails the notability criteria and the verifiability criteria because it has not received significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources (even the references in the article don't cover the letter in a non-trivial manner). It fails WP:COATRACK for all the reasons that have previously been stated here and at the other WP:COATRACKy articles that are being created on this subject/person/etc. WP:NOTINHERITED may be abit iffy but, basically saying that claims that the letter is notable because Palin wrote it, etc fall under this. "If the McCain-Palin ticket is elected, it will acquire even greater import," is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Do you really need me to fill up this debate with multiple words explaining why this fails the number of other policies that it fails? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious coatrack. --Crusio (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Wikipedia is being used to promote and sensationalize in a political contest. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Dloh cierekim 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Partisanship has hit a new level. Arzel (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a soapy coatrack. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all fairness to like-liberation, the author, I read an AP report about this in today's paper, but I maintain that this does not justify its own article. I would call this a dumb mistake, similar to Joe Biden plagiarizing from Neil Kinnock, or John McCain getting involved in the S & L bailouts, or Barack Obama not distancing himself further from Rev. Wright. It should be mentioned in the article about her, since her first act as mayor seems to have been a purge of city officials. But letters of termnation to librarians are not notable regardless of the circumstance. Mandsford (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and as WP:COATRACK. I have requested a much more minimal version of this info be added to the Sarah Palin article - see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:COATRACK Captain-tucker (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:POVFORK used as a WP:COATRACK. If anything about this incident is to be mentioned, it should be in Sarah Palin's article. --Farix (Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to the repeated argument that this article is a coatrack, let me just say this: It's notability has been established by a plethora of reliable secondary sources. An account of Palin's early interest in book removal should be included in Wikipedia as an aspect for her politics, and can be articulated in a neutral manner, which is what I'm attempting to do. Bias is not a necessary characteristic of this piece. If there is bias, I invite editors to help establish a more neutral tone. The only other reason to delete it would be due to an excess of attention on a trivial event. However, as anyone can see on the Sarah Palin talk page, accounts of the library and termination episode, even those proposed by Palin supporters, are running at a minimum of 300 words, and that's just for her bio (doesn't that suggest this incident is important?). It deserves more but there's a consensus for brevity on that page. The "more," which would include a statement from the library, should go in Wasilla librarian letter of termination, although I agree with the anonymous contributor below that the piece should be renamed.Like.liberation 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

Keep I don't know wikipolicies well enough to cite, but I can speak personally. I keep hearing people saying "She tried to get books banned! She Tried to get books banned" So I think that this issue is noteworthy. However, I could not muddle my way through all the internet comments, so I think this article is necessary. This page give a good, relatively unbiased, account; it points out that she did seem to be investigating the removal of books, but it gives the explicit phrasing ("How would you respond if I asked this ..." is different from "Do this ...") and it has references for further investigation. Unfortunately, this much information does not belong in the Sarah Palin article. Come on, the whole point of hypertext is that you can have links for expanding issues.

I do think it should be renamed, though. (How about Wasilla Library Controversy, or some such) --162.83.219.74 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 162.83.219.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.