Deletion of Resignation of Sarah Palin (2nd nomination)

Comment: but '''delete''' extraneous or |undue content.  This event, in the grand scheme of things, was not notable enough to warrant its own article, even given the unusually pervasive media attention that surrounds Sarah Palin.  My guess is that all of this content in the main article would have been rightly problematic due to |wp:undue, but the same issue exists with (or may even be amplified by) the separate article, just with fewer eyes paying attention
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: major speech watched ''live'' by over 5,000 people, and millions on the news; onging discussion in the |legitimate media indicates probable, but not certain, encyclopedic value
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: to Sarah Palin per  and . This is really only worthy of a paragraph or two in Palin's article, we certainly don't need extensive lists of opinions from various pundits and talking heads
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: after trim per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: In what way is this "far beyond the whole WP:NEWS thing"? The fact that this event was a few months ago does not automatically disqualify the article from being deleted under 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: it is very common for 21st century national figures to have articles for each stage of their life in order to keep the main aritcle to a reasonable 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE)

Comment: anything useful to Sarah_Palin#Resignation, and '''delete''' the rest. To give the early resignation of a minor Governor its own article gives  weight to its significance, and is 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NOTNEWS)