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 Speedied as obvious POV and original research, created by an SPA to create a negative impression concerning a particular political candidate. The linkage of an obscure "Alaska independence" movement to support for secession during the American Civil War constitutes advocacy inappropriate for Wikipedia. Relevant information concerning Ms. Palin's alleged support for Alaska secession, reliably sourced, may be included in the article concerning her or other appropriate articles, subject to the avoidance of undue weight on this or any other matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of candidates for Vice President Who Have Favored The Dissolution Of The United States[edit]

List of candidates for Vice President Who Have Favored The Dissolution Of The United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nominated for speedy deletion by another editor as an attack page and suspiciously declined w/o explanation by an anon IP. I have to agree with the nomination: "List of Candidates for Vice President" is so tenuous it is obviously designed to include Sarah Palin, conveniently on the list. Speedy Delete as an attack page, per the original nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Save. Well-sourced (now) and timely. It is factual information, if probably politically unfortunate. If Wikipedia were trying to avoid politically-damaging information why is McCain's correct age still listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.82.0 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Save. Article is clearly of interest to readers and contains factual information -- POV violations do not cover facts. There is nothing "convenient" about the inclusion of Sarah Palin, save the fact that she ought to be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexttolibertymostdear (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and therefore OR. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Save. The sources are coming. Unfortunately, in trying to write an article designed to answer a question wikipedia didn't currently answer about what Vice Presidental nominees had favored the secession of one or several states, people are imagining non-existent political motives in an attempt to assemble a list of Vice Presidential nominees who have favored the dissolution of the Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucabrasi12 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious point of view pushing. Where is Aaron Burr or doesn't he count? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per previous 'no source' point. --Non-dropframe (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The inclusion of Sarah Palin makes the irredeemably a POV piece and without a source it should be speedied as WP:BLP violation. 23skidoo (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as total POV pushing. This list has one very obvious purpose, and from what I understand of the sourcing, she at most argued for a vote on the issue. It's a Democracy, voting is okay. --Rividian (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Save. Rividian, the Confederate States had "votes" on the issue. The traditional view is that United States of America cannot be dissolved and that no state can ever secede. Jefferson Davis just wanted a vote too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucabrasi12 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My apologies.. I didn't mean to stuff the ballot box. I just made a mistake trying to illustrate my point about the shared ideological similarities of those on the list. Lucabrasi12 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious original research and POV-pushing, using obvious conclusions to throw Palin into a negative list intended to slander her. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization if nothing else. This mix of apples and oranges reeks of POV pushing. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious original research and POV pushing, especially as the alleged source for Palin having this view leads to a blank page. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Unsourced, Indescriminate POV attack page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - blatant overcategorization, exists only to make a point about something in Sarah Palin's past. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pretty obvious attack page, may satisfy CSD. RockManQ (talk) 00:59, 3 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.