Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Sarah Palin (2nd nomination)
develop it into an article. ''Smiling, but not joking.'' That it has not progressed is THE ONLY argument that should have been raised for having another time-wasting AfD so soon. ''Again, smiling but not joking.''   and  are as unpersuasive now as they were last time (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter). '''Merge?, no.''' (See previous parenthetical.)BEGIN SOAPBOX Speaking as a rhetorical analyst, the rhetorical argument presented is: ''Sarah Palin is a flash in the pan ... Clearly the resignation of a flash in the pan is of momentary interest (news), certainly not historical ... because, um, Sarah Palin is flash in the pan. '' Whether or not one is a fan of Sarah Palin, she, and her notable/controversial resignation (marking a surprising turning point in her career) is of more historical significance than huge swaths of what we cover in Wikipedia&mdash;not that our opinion on that matters, of course. Which is why such opinions should not be the basis for a time-wasting re-run Afd. BOTTOM LINE: Asserting  and  is not persuasive. Rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion of the historical significance of Sarah Palin is less so. HOWEVER (AS PER ABOVE) What is there (on the page) is NOT improving toward article-hood. Let us wave a stick at those who say "KEEP" to do something about that. (SOTTO VOCE) ''And yes, Ms Palin, I'll be happy to help you write your speeches, for a very reasonable fee&mdash;which will not include editing your Wikipedia articles, which costs extra, plus Jimbo's cut.'' :) META COMMENT If I'm going to have to waste my time on another time-wasting AfD, I'm gonna sure as heck have fun. I have. Cheers
— User:Proofreader77, 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)