Deletion of Sarah Palin E-Mail-Hack

Comment: The incident is already given its appropriate weight and detail at Sarah Palin and 4chan, and the complicated and inaccurate spelling of the page title here makes redirection non-productive. With regard to including information in the article on the (presumed) hacker's father, I don't think it would be problematic ''if'' Mike Kernell actually had a detailed article, but you are correct that as it stands it would give the incident severe |undue weight
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: as a |content fork and per #NEWS. Relevant, encyclopedic info can go in the Presidential campaign article once it's clear exactly what is going on. ''If'' this article is kept, it will be yet another trouble spot requiring constant vigilance (it's already a BLP disaster area); this is not a reason to delete it ''per se'', but I'd ask all contributors here to watchlist the page and help with BLP issues if it's kept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NOT)

Comment: per , possible  and , etc. Wikipedia is not here to press any agenda or to report the news
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP)

Comment: violates , , and possibly . &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:POVFORK||WP:BLP)

Comment: Already covered in the main biographical article on Palin (no opinion on the father article) and nothing to suggest this has lasting notability. If this turns out to be the Watergate of the 21st century, then let's revisit it later. I agree the title used isn't condusive to a redirect. Someone wanting info will go to Palin's article first. I also have concerns from a  perspective here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)