Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions 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 keep. Consistent with other similar politicians pages. If serious POV pushing is occurring here as well then we always have the option of protecting this page too, though it does appear to be fairly stable. I don't see any major POV concerns here either. Black Kite 16:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Sarah Palin[edit]

Delete Page exists only as a content fork to get around edit protection on main article. Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - page exists to make sure the BLP isn't way too long. Completely consistent with other well known politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have plenty of pages on the views of similar politicians (see Category:Political positions of politicians). If protection is necessary then protect it. Hut 8.5 13:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the main article will be far to long otherwise. Disputes on separate pages can be handled separately, and if this 'fork' doesn't need protecting as well, then that's surely a good thing anyway. Ian¹³ /t 13:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - the article survived a merger proposal with an overwhelming majority (see here); I see no reason why this nomination should get a different result. This is simply gaming the system, and should be snowballed. Lampman (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am not suggesting bad faith on the part of the nominator, who might have been unaware of the previous discussion. Lampman (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sarah Palin. That article is not too long, compared to other such articles, because her career has been shorter. BLP concerns are minimal, as the frenzy has passed and the Sarah Palin article is full-protected. Much of the arguing on the Palin article has been over the reduction of its Positions section to next to nothing. Claims on the Palin talk page that the political positions (that she herself has taken) are too controversial, and riddled with WP:UNDUE, BLP and NPOV concerns are refuted by the fact that this page has stabilized, gives a balanced treatment, is well-sourced, and no libel, errors or any other such problems can be found. A discussion on a talk page is not a previous AfD and consensus can change, so this needs full discussion by the community. The time has come to merge it back in. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is for discussion of the possibility of deletion, not merging. Hut 8.5 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes Lampman's reasoning much less relevant. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An overwhelming majority (18/4) agreed that a separate "Political positions"-article was warranted. How is that not relevant to the question of whether the article should be deleted? And for your information, if this article is deleted, then GFDL-policy doesn't allow anything here to be copied to the main article. That means no merger, and all this well-sourced information will be lost. Which would be a shame, seeing how the "Political positions" part of the main article currently consists of two tiny little two-sentence paragraphs. Lampman (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not the solution. The solution is to unprotect the main article so that it continue to be improved. This is is content fork, per WP:SUMMARY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Insufficient reasoning to delete.--Tznkai (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - bad-faith nomination using incorrectly-applied rationale. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your assumption of bad faith is hardly acting in good faith! The writing is on the wall here. We are overrun with POV pushers on both sides of the Palin debate, and having extra articles that they can POV push on is not a good thing. I honestly believe that getting rid of ~~Wikipedia~~ this article will improve the encyclopedia. Mayalld (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe that getting rid of Wikipedia will improve the encyclopedia.' LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Mayalld (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we must burn the village to save it! Good or bad faith, I suggest the nominator reads up on the difference between content forks and summary style. As it stands the nomination has no merit, is there please an administrator who can snowball it and remove that silly and pointless template? Lampman (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Well developed, important article. No good reason to delete it. If you think it should have a different protection level, take it up on the discussion page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - we can't just lock or delete every article that someone might attempt to push POV on. If that's the rationale we might as well just delete the whole site and give up. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep GreekParadise (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.