Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:35, 12 November 2024

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 delete. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Furthermore, this issue has been covered elsewhere, such as at Sarah Palin, and the investigation is still in progress. There will be no prejudice towards its future recreation if there are any major noteworthy developments that supersedes the overall scope of Sarah Palin. seicer | talk | contribs 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: It has been userified per request. seicer | talk | contribs 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin E-Mail-Hack

Sarah Palin E-Mail-Hack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. This incident is being used to make attacks on the father of the person who is being investigated by the FBI, and has nothing to do with the father. The article was created by a user who was edit warring to include the information in the father's article, but was reverted and got a 3RR warning. Corvus cornix_talk 07:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. 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. --erachima talk 07:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Kernell had nothing whatsoever to do with it. His SON did. The extent this is mentioned in Kernell's bio should be a one-liner link to this article. If Kernell's son were notable (beyond this one incident), it would make sense to include it in an article about the son ... but including it in an article about the father would be like turning George HW Bush's bio into an article about George W Bush's presidency. --B (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• My point precisely. The incident has only a minor connection to Mike Kernell so it should make up only a minor portion of his article, which right now would not be the case due to the lack of any other real info about the guy. --erachima talk 16:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete But it needs to go in the Mike Kernell article, as this is probably the only time Mike Kernell has made the national news, and is probably the only thing anyone outside of Tennessee knows about him. If someone feels it adds undue weight, then they can ADD to the Kernell article rather than delete this ref. Politics n such (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and contextualize. There seems to be plenty of sources for this and the article is how many hours old? The US elections are at a fevered pitch with all manner of nonsense getting overblown. This is a promising article about the intersection of hackers and politics with a guarantee that like everything else during the elections it will be examined in infinite detail and reported in all major media. -- Banjeboi 08:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, possible WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP, etc. Misplaced Pages is not here to press any agenda or to report the news. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for now, while the investigation is in progress. Not everybody reads the news all the time, and if this were somehow to end up in court, I would not want any juror to have first heard about it on Misplaced Pages. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect to Wikileaks, where the subject is briefly mentioned. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's also mentioned at Sarah Palin, Anonymous (group) and 4chan. We can't redirect to all of those places. Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. 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 WP:BLP perspective here. 23skidoo (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Corvus that this isn't much more than an attack page on the father of the perpetrator, disguised as an article about computer security. While the incident itself will probably be noted in future stories about identity theft, this prank will never become a "-gate" for anyone. Since this incident is covered elsewhere, and since it's unlikely that "E-Mail-Hack" will ever be used as as a redirect, delete. Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Misplaced Pages is not the news. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to Sarah Palin e-mail hacking incident - this is a pretty serious event in the campaign and, from a BLP standpoint, keeps Mike Kernell from being nothing but a coatrack about his son's alleged offense. The title, though, is not all that spectacular. --B (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Serious event in what campaign? Not in the Presidential campaign. Corvus cornix_talk 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a content fork and per WP:NOT#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. MastCell  15:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POVFORK, and possibly WP:BLP. –Juliancolton 16:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. abf /talk to me/ 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided This is discussed in the Sarah Palin article. Not discussed there is press criticism by the Washington Post, New York Times and CNET News of her use of a low-security non-government email for state business, which was said not to be in accord with the applicable state law. If her email use was to keep official correspondence outside legally mandated channels, and there were consequences, or if some scandalous email were revealed which affected the campaign, or if this incident led to major email providers going beyond hackable password recovery questions of zipcode, birthdate and where she met her husband, all widely available info, then this incident might deserve a stand-alone article. It may be too soon to evaluate the notability of this event. Perhaps merge now to the Palin article with no barrier against creating a stand-alone article in the future. Edison (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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.