Why is there no separate entry for BRISTOL Palin ???

Why are searches for her name redirected to her mother's page ???

BRISTOL Palin is major headline news.

I think BRISTOL Palin warrants a page of her own.

Or are we dealing with

Censorship in the USA? Censorship at Wikipedia?

Make a page if you want it....this is not locked Corpx (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of creating the page... probably needs some work. Aussie.power (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of redirecting it. People do not become notable for becoming pregnant. Bristol is notable only because of her mother- see the notability guidelines for people and our guidelines on people known for only one thing. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page following WP:BLP, since this topic has to do with the underage child of a notable person whose life and career has become a high traffic news item. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of the discussion, I am hereby inserting a repeat of some of the contributions on another "Bristol palin" talk page, that was closed due to the incorrect capitalization of the subjects name, after having been heavily vandalized by one certain Dlohcierekim:

This reeks of blunt manipulation. There is no doubt in my mind that Bristol Palin deserves a page of her own. Bristol Palin is now for lack of a better word a 'celebrity', if not an infamous 'rape victim'. A quick search / hit count on google, yahoo etc. will turn out hundreds, if not thousand of hits (e.g.: google: Results 1 - 10 of about 166,000 for bristol palin. (0.14 seconds)). This girl clearly deserves a pages of her own, indeed. Unfortunately wikipedia and its sister sites have now been hijacked by a couple (or rather a well organised army?) of right-wing spin doctors and their orwellian lieutenants. Compared to these people (and I am convinced Dlohcierekim is one of them indeed) Winston Smith and Dr. Goebbels were freakin amateurs... Or to say it in the rightwing Christian newspeak Bush/McCain stands for: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." Mijnlulinjouwkut (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NOT giving Bristol her own wikipedia page reeks of politicization of the forum and is a violation of NPOV. We are talking about a person who has been covered by more newsmedia than 90% of the subjects on wikipedia. Besides this, her life situation is directly relevant to the election in the United States, a non trivial entity. Denying that Bristol's own decisions have any bearing on her mother's candidacy is equivalent to denying that she is an independent actor with free will. This is insulting not only to her personal autonomy but is also a continuation by other means of policies which would rob her of that same free will and make her, as wikipedia is doing, a mere asterik in her mother's narrative. --Chakira (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

78.21.12.29 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject in question has enough significant coverage from reliable sources, then why cant an article be created? We have pages on a lot of youtube celebrities. I fail to see what age has to do with anything here. I dont see any problems having an article if its well sourced from reliable sources. Corpx (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for one, and only one thing. Getting pregnant. A small mention in her mother's article is all that is needed. BJ^Talk 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bjweeks. SQL^{Query me!} 05:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point and I'd agree with you if she had kept a relatively low profile, but she and her fiance has been touring the campaign and have thrust themselves into the limelight. I'd guess that she's also going be covered by the media heavily till the elections and there is already plenty of significant coverage for a well sourced article. Corpx (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend drafting an article in your sandbox and then proposing here what you would like to post. Kelly ^hi! 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat likely Bristol Palin will be a stand alone article, maybe even sooner rather than later, but as yet I tend to agree with BJWeeks and SQL: I don't think her notability is established. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you, Gwen. I think the current problem is that there is little in the way of sourcing of biographical details outside the pregnancy right now. I'm sure that more information will eventually be published, an article will likely be appropriate then. Kelly ^hi! 05:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too lazy to do this, but I feel like others who want to put in the effort should be able to do so. In addition to the pregnancy, she has also become a hot topic about teen marriage. Is Mary Cheney known for anything other than being the gay daughter of a VP? What about Barbara Pierce Bush? Corpx (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a good point, those articles should probably not exist either, however, we're talking about Bristol Palin here, and, not those people. I strongly disagree that either pregnancy, or, young marriage makes one notable. Both of these happen relatively frequently in the US. SQL^{Query me!} 06:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along this line, Mary Cheney's autobiography was a flop, notable mostly for the big advance she got for writing it and Barbara Bush the younger is a Yalie. At least the two of them are daughters of sitting rulers, so I can be more or less neutral about each of them having a short article. Bristol got pregnant and so far her mum's but a candidate. It's not the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy giving automatic notability to wifes/kids of politicians in power. The bar should be whether or not the person passes WP:N, and I believe this girl does. Also, her mom is currently the sitting governor of Alaska. Corpx (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any articles about her which are not in fact more about her mother/her mother's campaign? All the pregnancy stuff is relating to her mother, not her. Has she done anything to become notable? J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have a biographical article, there must be sufficient material to satisfy NPOV. Since Bristol has done nothing noteworthy in her own right, such an article is likely to be dominated by the pregnancy -- an incident noteworthy only for its potential impact on the campaign. Presenting readers with a salacious tale and some high-school trivia as the sum of a young woman's life would be to bring undue emphasis on her pregnancy. Since NPOV violations, such as undue emphasis, are to be strictly avoided for biographies of living persons, I see no likelihood that a policy-conforming article can be written for at least several years. In contrast, a short mention in an appropriate article keeps the incident in context, and does not present itself as a balanced presentation of Bristol's life.

For Bristol's role in the campaign to be notable enough to rate a biography, she would need to take a leadership role of some sort. I suppose it could happen, but I'm not holding my breath. As for other articles that perhaps should not exist, that is what AfD is for. Some of those articles were borderline cases that arise before we had section redirects. Now, there is no need to have a separate article unless there is enough material to make a good one. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've yet to hear an argument for notability that doesn't point to the subject's mom. Therefore, the most reasonable place, for anything about the subject, is probably a short blurb in their mother's article -- if anywhere. SQL^{Query me!} 18:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a full article would be easily deleted due to notability not being inherited. Well, maybe not... but in a perfect world that follows our notability guidelines in relation to people, it would be. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redirect should point to Sarah Palin#Family which is the correct section. I'd change it myself but alas, noone gave me such tools for that. So thanks for doing it for me ;-) SoWhy 13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been  Done by the way :P SQL^{Query me!} 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• {{editprotected}}However there is no such section as Sarah Palin#Family; it should be redirected to Sarah Palin#Personal life. Not sure why Bristol Palin is protected - there was only one remotely quesionable edit! Nfitz (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as non-controversial house-keeping. By the way, the page is already fully protected. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the protection, since an article was also created at Bristol palin, the combined edits at both titles may have led to the protection of both. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protection was made after I raised the issue on Talk:Sarah Palin then someone else raised it on the administrators' noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I recall I protected the page after seeing a suggestion to do so on AN. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no edits in the history of Bristol palin that would suggest any need to fully protect. To pre-emptively fully-protect a redirect page seems to be a violation of WP:FAITH. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the version that was deleted under criterion G10, attack page? —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted version at Bristol palin could indeed be taken as a blatant attack page. I see no reason to unprotect the redirect at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very high profile page. The version in the history stood for around 20 minutes- it was probably seen by a large number of people. An unsourced sub-stub not conforming with the MoS is not what we want people to see when searching for a current political controversy. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one's in the History that weren't redirects are [1] and [2]. While poorly written, neither is offensive. Nfitz (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the deletion log. [3] Robert A.West (Talk) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I've just created stubs on Libertarian Wiki:

a site that uses MediaWiki software.

http://libertarianwiki.org/Sarah_Palin

http://libertarianwiki.org/Bristol_Palin

There is also

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin_Chronicles&action=edit

Yartett (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yartett (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]