Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination)

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 keep.

Wow, that was quite a discussion. There were a few problems here with unhelpful comments - too much WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Comments on whether this events deserves so much coverage do not really have that much bearing - it may seem ridiculous for a newspaper to cover an event like this, but we need to decide whether their coverage is enough to make the event notable, not whether it was justified. There were also many comparisons made with other articles, which were not incredibly helpful. The Obama dog incident, often mentioned, bears little resemblance to this case. Other events were mentions, yet they were also insufficiently similar to make a useful comparison.

Those concerns out of the way, we come to two main issues: does the article pass the WP:GNG and, if it does, are there any other consideration which would require its deletion? It was established quite early on that the article did meet the GNG, and this was not opposed too strongly. The duration of the coverage and the depth of coverage in a wide range of sources were particularly strong arguments, and a good case was made for each of the WP:NEVENT criteria, strengthened by the impact this has had on the presidential campaign. Thus, there seems to be a general (though not unanimous) consensus that the event is notable.

The second contention was whether, if the article was indeed notable, any other significant factors should be taken into account. Key to this were the policies, guidelines and essays WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:COATRACK, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:GOSSIP. It was well noted that NOT#NEWS was summarising the news coverage that already existed; the contention was whether this went beyond routine coverage. Many of the GNG arguments were significant here: the depth and duration of coverage takes the article beyond routine news coverage. It was expressed that this events has enduring notability, rather than just being a one-off news report, as evidenced by the depth of coverage in multiple reliable sources. COATRACK was used in discussing whether the article served simply as a coatrack for smears or political campaigning. There were decent arguments about the neutrality of the article - it may be skewed against Romney - however, it was never demonstrated why deletion, rather than just improving the article was necessary. Again with reference to the GNG debate, the quality of sources, especially for contentious comments, seemed to resolve that issue. Nevertheless, there is no reason that the neutrality of the article cannot be improved. Finally, ADVOCACY and GOSSIP were generally presented together; the same points as applied to COATRACK apply in this case.

A brief discussion existed about the name of the article and a possible merger. However, it emerged that difficulties with the last attempt at this (edit warring and giving the issue undue weight on the Romney article) make this untenable. Merging with the Obama dog article, as noted, would not be correct as the two issues are very different in nature. The latter article has also been deleted. There was, however, a decent consensus for renaming the article to redefine the scope as the controversy, rather than the dog itself. No clear name emerged in these discussions, however. Therefore, although I have kept the article at its current name for now, I suggest that a RfC is opened regarding a potential move where this issue can be discussed more fully, without the distraction of a deletion discussion taking place simultaneously.

I appreciate that this article is and will always be contentious. I did not take this decision and spent a long time weighing all the arguments presented in the debate. If anyone has any questions or concerns, they are welcome to raise them at my talk page.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus (dog)[edit]

Also see Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a dog once owned by U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Well, actually, it is almost entirely about a single day in that dog's life in 1983, when the dog was transported on a family vacation in a carrier tied to the roof of a station wagon, and about the fact that Romney's critics have attempted to repeatedly bring that up as a criticism of Romney in his 2012 campaign. The prior AfD in January and February closed as "no consensus". More recently, though, someone realized that Barack Obama, in his memoir Dreams from My Father, had mentioned eating dog meat in Indonesia when he was young. That prompted the creation of the article Obama Eats Dogs meme, which is itself up for deletion now. Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article. I recommend deletion for this one. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the political season is upon us, and our sometimes-reliable sources are covering issues like this with great depth and breadth. I recommend merging this article and Obama Eats Dogs meme into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which seems to possibly be the consensus forming at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs. Kelly ^hi! 05:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such merge target and there should be no such merge target — that proposed article is unencyclopedic, too. It would be nothing but a disruptive edit-war playground for POV warriors of both sides. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That target was suggested sarcastically [1] but Kelly jumped on it because it serves to equate the two unrelated incidents. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regardless of why, Seamus is quite the notable canine. There is plenty of source material to sustain the article, and the incident has played a significant role in a US presidential race and is likely to continue to. This is not a flash in the pan incident, and regardless of one's personal views on it, it is an appropriate and sourced topic for an encyclopedia article. In conclusion, I'm unsure of the relevance of the Obama meme—that should also be considered on the basis of sourcing or lack thereof, not anything else, and not on the basis of anything else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question at hand is not whether we think that the Seamus incident was serious or not, but whether the dog or the incident surrounding the dog has become notable under Wikipedia's policies. Considering the amount of media attention that this issue has received, I would say that it is notable. When Diane Sawyer interviewed Mitt and Ann Romney, Seamus was the issue that the most amount of viewers were submitting questions about. Debbie W. 11:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And ban multiple people participating herein for violating WP:POINT Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MergeNotable incident, but I don't know that the dog needs his (her?) own page. And, Hipocrite, should you now be nomiated for violating WP:AFG? Nothing said by the other editors evidences that they are trying to be disruptive, or trying to prove a point.JoelWhy (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, I meant it should be merged (or, at least, mentioned) in the Romney page. Why the heck is there a Dogs in the 2012 Presidential Race page? That's a page that should be deleted, IMO...JoelWhy (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, there isn't a Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election page. Where you joking? Or gave the wrong title?JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a bad idea that came up yesterday during the debate over the equally insipid Obama Eats Dogs page. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this article and Obama Eats Dogs meme which are the result of embarrassingly childish political posturing. They are not encyclopedic topics. (They are not even newsworthy topics, and the fact that the national media consider them so is proof of our nation's decline.) Ban everyone from Wikipedia who thinks these articles are a good idea. Peacock (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These two memes (Seamus and #ObamaAteADog) belong as quickie blurbs in the general discussion for the 2012 U.S. presidential election article as parts of the campaign. They certainly do not deserve their own separate or even merged article. --McDoob AU 93 14:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or merge. Simple WP:NOTNEWS; dog tied to car, ideological foes make hay of it during political silly season. Give it a mention in Romney's campaign article if need be, the sources mentioned justify that much . Not a standalone. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably, or at the least merge into the main campaign article. This and the Obama Eats Dogs nonsense are nothing more than stupid political posturing, and have little, if any, encyclopedic value. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same Result as what ever the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs is. The two dueling stories are unavoidably intertwined. If we decide one qualifies for NOTNEWS, then both do, and if one gets deleted and not the other it would rightly be seen as representing a partisan bias. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not deleted on the basis of ideological pairing, each case must be argued independently on the basis of policy and precedent. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles passes the minimum threshold for notability, which means that if we delete them we are doing so for prudential reasons. As such, I think avoiding bias or favoritism, and the virtue of treating like articles alike are valid considerations. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect one holding the same position for both pieces, keep or delete; it relates how one views the applicability of NOTNEWS. Regardless, though, the deletion processes are independent. Hopefully they'll both be appropriately nuked. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carrite in this line of reasoning. The Obama dog meme is a political reaction to the Romney dog controversy. I believe it's too easy, maybe even editorially lazy, to conflate the two because of political considerations. El duderino ^(abides) 03:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is 2012 American Presidential campaign fooliganism. The dog in the 1980s of an unelected candidate for office is important ONLY to his political opponents. It is not a topic for encyclopedic coverage. If the incident of putting pup on the roof of the BMW is significant in terms of historical importance, it should be part of the biography of the politician in question. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS and it is NOT a running chronicle of endlessly cycled and recycled campaign allegations of the two multimillion dollar Presidential propaganda campaigns of the two "old parties." And no, I'm not voting for the slimy position-shifting right wing religionist front man OR the golden-tongued-but-pyrite-programed corporate flack in the White House — I'm a third party to these shenanigans, if you will. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many people believe you can judge someone's character by the way they treat animals. Especially as an adult. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can judge his character by what he did in 1983. But this matter is not just about what Romney did in 1983. It's also about what he's doing now. It's important to notice that Romney still maintains that what he did was not a mistake. Animal cruelty is a serious character flaw, and refusing to take responsibility for a mistake is a separate, and also serious, character flaw. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. He's still trying to excuse it. El duderino ^(abides) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia cannot be sucked into becoming a free voice for Superpac nonsense. If Checkers doesnt warrant his own page, this pup certainly dont either.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FART.-Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. It is already mentioned in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and that's about the extent of what the notability of the topic deserves. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was there LSD in the water supply this morning, or am I actually, truly seeing that we have an article on this topic? No, no, it must be hallucinations confusing me. There's no possible way that we could have a standalone article on this. ... could we? Because if it really, truly is a real article, Delete the bloody thing instantly and include the material as a short (very short) bit in Mitt Romney if we absolutely, positively must. I know it's an election year down your way, Americans, and that there's a tendency to get insane with it, but Christ on a pogo stick there's absolutely no value to having this whatsoever. Yes, it's a controversy. No, it's not worth having a page for the goddamn DOG. Ugh. ... okay, I've said it, I feel better. Now off to the *other* stupid article's AFD... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - WP:NOT#NEWS. It is already mentioned in a couple of lines in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and thats what the notability of the topic deserves. Creators and bloaters of such partisan NPOV content need topic banning to help avoid such creations/expansions.Youreallycan 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For better or worse, this story took on a life of its own quite some time ago, and is independently notable because its coverage meets the GNG. That various partisan advocates are lately trying to capitalize on it should be recognized in the writing of the article. The article title doesn't reflect the substance of the underlying topic; note the form of Checkers speech, dealing with another prominent political canine. Wikipedia doesn't stick its head in the sand in covering political subjects, even though keeping the articles in proper form may be harder work than articles on uncontroversial animals like Socks (cat), Buddy (dog), and Fala (dog) -- especially since this one has been covered in the context of multiple campaigns. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this utterly unimportant article about a single event in the life of a dog long since dead and buried. Wikipedia should have some standards of decorum and professionalism, and clambering down into the day-to-day political muck of U.S. Democrats and Republicans is really beneath us. At the very least, the article should be renamed to Mitt Romney dog controversary, since the dog itself is not notable per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Whatever the final result, the same needs to apply to the equally unimportant Obama Eats Dogs meme (or whatever its name is today) article. Honestly, both articles should be deleted. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we should not be adding articles for every single talking point Team Red and Team Blue use in their endless battles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:COATRACK. The article is an example of trivial things being blown up as part of a US presidential campaign. The coverage is about what Romney did, not about anything the dog did. The references do not state that this was in any way a remarkable or noteworthy dog. It is adequately covered by one sentence in the Mitt Romney article. Edison (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Romney incident is important as one example of the man's character. An adult abusing the family pet is alot different than a child eating what's given to him. Just because the latter is used as political retribution for the former doesn't mean we have to. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. "I don't like Romney, so let's stick it to him good". Charming. Not really quality encyclopedic material, though. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said at the article talkpage( when another editor falsely accused me of this bias with no evidence except his own presumptions), I've never said such a thing. I think readers have a right to decide for themselves what Romney's actions mean about him. An unfortunate result of editing neutrally and countering conservative POV-pushers is being accused of left-leaning bias. Just like you've done at the Santorum pages.. So is it your contention that voters looking to learn more about Romney here should not be allowed to do so? El duderino ^(abides) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your let the reader decide attitude here hard to reconcile with your attitude that we should delete the Obama dog eating article. Why shouldn't the reader "have a right to decide for themselves what" ~~Romney's~~ Obama's "actions mean about him" as well? Monty ₈₄₅ 22:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can only surmise that you didn't look closely enough. I gave tentative support to a rename of this one and possible inclusion of that one, after initially opposing the latter because of Kelly's proposed text and non-collaborative mien. Part of the overall problem with these various discussions, at least procedurally if not wiki-politically (?), is that Kelly has several different balls in the air, so to speak. El duderino ^(abides) 02:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Romney, have you stopped beating your puppy???? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless merged with Obama Eats Dogs, trimmed, and moved to Dogs in the 2012 US election (sorry, Michelle). Doesn't even deserve a paragraph in the Romney campaign article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a better target is Stupid political nonsense of the 2012 Presidential campaign - gather all the crap into a single location that can be quarantined from the rest of the encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a pretty good idea, I mean we would need a slightly less pointy title, but creating one Controversies of the 2012 US Presidential campaign article would allow all the minor controversies that will inventiably crop up in the coming months to be merged to one place where we can keep the NPOV in check. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per NPOV my suggested title would need to be the one. I would also suggest an automatic editing ban of any other article for any editor who partakes in such a slimefest. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we subtitle it "Giant D__che vs. T__d sandwich?" Let me know when; have lots of nominations beyond dog gate aka dog-crate vs dog-gout (don't know the wiki for the French accent). If you wanted to make it Political memes of the 2012 election, large article.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability other than the single incident, which has been dealt with appropriately in other articles. WP:NOTNEWS as others have pointed out. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLD1E. The suggestion of TheRedPenOfDoom sounds reasonable, too. --Conti|✉ 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WOW, cooler heads have arrived. A few days ago, I did not see it as a possibility to get this mess cleaned up the way it should be, by deleting. Delete is the appropriate option and I am about to go change my compromise !vote on the other page, too. This is a flash-in-the-pan, election year, bashing topic which has been thinly (very thinly) disguised as a dog biography, of all things (see WP:POVFORK). It is here only to disparage its true subject and should have been deleted on first sight. This needs to go, forthwith; and I am glad to see that that is a real possibility.WTucker (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this one. It is entirely political propaganda. I almost nominated it myself a couple days ago and then forgot about it. If anything, this should be nothing more than a passing mention in the article on Mitt Romney. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with the Obama Dog meme. This is actually the third nomination. The first was a speedy delete, the second was a merge, and the review of the second was a no concensus. As I stated from the very beginning, the actual dog has done nothing to warrent an article. The actual incident itself and the corresponding response regarding Obama may be worthy of an article so long as care is taken for the article to not become a coatrack/POV fork. Arzel (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original speedy delete (A7) and corresponding review. Arzel (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This story, and subsequent grassroots campaign that has survived against all odds for years, aided by the rise in influence of social media, is a case study of the evolution of the American political process - as is the Obama dog-eating furor of late. While I can entertain the argument that neither deserves it's own page, the only fair, unbiased solution in my view is to document both fully. If they don't deserve individual entries they should be included within the 2012 Presidential Election page - perhaps under a "Dog Wars" heading, as the U.S. (and numerous International) media have dubbed it. Most importantly, neither story should be successfully suppressed - or perceived as having been suppressed - by an organized effort of political partisans. — CScottCrider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete~~ Undecided - This isn't a question of Wikipedia being 'fair' or not, it is a question of whether we are a gossip rag or a well-respected encyclopedia. This story and Obama story are not notable in their own right. Nixon's dog Checkers is noteworthy on its own because it helped Nixon win his party's support to run as Vice-President and win. A family trip with a dog in a crate is not. The president eating a bit of dog is not. Wikipedia needs to acknowledge its own policies, admitting that we are not a political soapbox or advocacy platform for any party, we're not here to spread the latest gossip, and while the standard of Wikipedia notability is met by both stories, it is worth reminding that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and our other policies and guidelines rail against unencyclopedic material being added. We're not TMZ and we're not Yahoo! OMG. We're supposed to be better. -- Avanu (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, Checkers on his own is not noteworthy for an eneyclopedia article, he is being referenced only as the coloquial name / subject mentioned in an important presidential speech.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, the story should be kept, or perhaps change the title to "Romney dog story" or similar. Anything that is mentioned so often in a presidential campaign about a major candidate is likely to be researched by people trying to find out about it. This is one of those things that have to be reported, even though the story is relatively trivial (such as many murders that become notorious, even though there are thousands of murders every year: for example, Leopold and Loeb, OJ, etc.). Who brings up these deletion requests? They try to delete stories that are, if not important, media sensations, and influential because of that. People should spend their time filling up the articles that are deficient in facts, and yet deserve more attention and filling out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.236.56 (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As is quite usual in AfD discussions, people are misunderstanding and mis-applying the deprecated WP:NOTNEWS wikilink, which no longer even exists as a separate shortcut. If you click on WP:NOTNEWS you land at a soft redirect which says, quite rightly, that it has been deprecated in favor of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ( that has significantly revised language ) "to draw attention to the actual policy, not just the potentially misleading shortcut". The following are the relevant policy considerations that correctly apply, however:

(1) This article is "is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", per WP:SIGCOV, also known as the General Notability Guideline, since it has "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

(2) Our WP:NTEMP policy, confusingly named as "Notability is not temporary", applies: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It's worth noting that there are other passages within our policy pages which express an opposing view in the "recentism versus significant coverage" debate, however.

(3) Here's a simple truth we can all agree on: "The fewer sources there are on a subject, the more a Wikipedia article takes on the qualities of a news source rather than an encyclopaedia." That's what NOTNEWS was trying to get at and prevent, but this article isn't making the news, it's summarising news, summarising significant coverage from independent sources, which is what we're supposed to do in our articles.

(4) It's tempting - and delightfully homely - to cite BLP1E in reference to a dog, but it's my opinion that the coatracky nature of that policy statement has, as it soundest basis, the reasonable preservation of privacy for a person who is thrust into the media spotlight over a single event. I doubt Seamus, may he rest in peace, cares much about his privacy at this point.

– OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that (1) is true for absolutely everything that is in the news, right? As soon as, say, AFP writes something, it takes a day and we have dozens of sources about a certain topic. Just go to http://news.google.com/, you could create an article out of any topic you find there that would satisfy our general notability guidelines. There's 222 sources on Obama appearing on some late night show[2], for instance. That sure as hell is enough to warrant an article, right? :) --Conti|✉ 15:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conti's analogy is specious. If a person who didn't already have an article here was written about in 222 news stories, then, yes, that would satisfy WP:GNG for an independent article. A better comparison would be to our Susan (dog) article; the dog became independently notable by virtue of the media coverage she received from travelling with Queen Elizabeth. The basis is the same for Romney's dog, and Seamus' mode of travel was much more spectacular, besides.

And, yes, I'm well aware of the rubric saying "notability is not inheirited"; I've not claimed it is. Axl Rose's current girlfriend isn't notable simply because she's dating him. But if he strapped her to the top of his car and drove 12 hours to a vacation spot, I dare say she'd become independently notable due to the media attention that would be focused her way. – OhioStandard (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No she wouldn't, as such an article would be deleted on WP:BLP1E grounds. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair point, Tarc, but analogies only go so far. Please see (4), above. – OhioStandard (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that a human involved in only one event is not notable enough for an article, but a long dead dog is???? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

***Comment*** For the record, I voted MERGE, by which I simply meant the story should be included (1 or 2 sentences) on the Romney page and/or 2012 Presidential Election page, etc. Is there a formal definition of MERGE for Wikipedia? I just want to make sure I didn't vote to have the entire contents of this page merged into one of the other pages.JoelWhy (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in question. It is the appropriateness of the article that was the issue raised by the nominator here. -- Avanu (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote. Your opinion will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. The close will be a weighted assessment of the arguments given and not just a tally of all the bold and uppercase words. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the story is sufficiently notable and should be kept. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, again, the question as stated is not about notability. Do you have a rationale that addresses the point made by the nominator? -- Avanu (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; breadth and duration of coverage by significant reliable sources have established notability. I don't understand what contrary argument is being made in the nomination, unless it's that we shouldn't have articles on topics that the nominator doesn't think are worthy of articles, which is not an argument I would find convincing.Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 1[edit]

Delete, as stated above by many, per WP:NOTNEWS, unencyclopaedic, trivial and a one-time event in the life of the candidate/dog, which is already mentioned in the Romney article. Enough, already. As to Ohio's claim that people misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, it clearly states:
- While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (my emphasis) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but read the very next sentence for what that clearly means: The examples it gives are, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Seamus is hardly "routine news". – OhioStandard (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not "clearly state" what the sentence I quoted covers. It just says, "for example, routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia", it does not say that these are the only form of newsworthy events undeserving of an encyclopaedic article. In fact, it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. To clarify. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next sentence gives examples of the kinds of things covered by the preceding one; it gives a sense of the scope and range of what is meant by the description, "most newsworthy events". Something that was first covered by Time, ABC News, and The Boston Globe in 2007, and that has been covered repeatedly since, and that has had dozens of articles written about it now, is hardly in the same category. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the "Delete" !votes amount to people saying, "I personally would not give this incident much weight in deciding how to vote, therefore it's objectively not important and doesn't merit an article." Well, the objective standard is whether it actually is a matter of widespread interest, not whether it should be in some ideal world in which most people agreed with the judgments of a handful of Wikipedians. The extensive media coverage is by itself enough to demonstrate that this is notable. Further, although we usually have to make do with drawing inferences about notability from facts like that, here we have an impartial expert directly stating that it is notable: "Mark Halperin, the senior political analyst for Time magazine and MSNBC, opined that 'for a lot of voters' the incident was 'a serious issue'." (from [3]) We have standalone articles on comparable political attacks against Democrats, such as John Kerry military service controversy and Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. Both of these, IMO, were complete horseshit meritless attacks, achieving notability only because of the relentless blaring of the right-wing noise machine (the Kerry smear was contradicted by Navy records and by the prior statements of the liars recruited by the Republicans; the Ayers thing tried to attack Obama for all the past acts of someone with whom he had only a slight connection). Nevertheless, these articles are properly kept because the subjects achieved notability -- undeserved notability, but still notability. Finally, the support for "Merge" is unrealistic. It's a call for endless edit wars about how much information (if any!) gets merged into some other article. The standalone article is a correct application of WP:SS, with the Mitt Romney bio having a very brief mention plus a link to this more detailed article for the benefit of readers who want more information. JamesMLane t c 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think merger is a unmitigated disaster. In the first AfD for Seamus, initially the decision was for merger, and the closing admin merged Seamus (dog) with Mitt Romney. This led to 24 hours of severe edit warring between people who thought that the AfD's decision should be adhered to, and people who thought that the addition of the Seamus story to the Romney article was undue weight. Both sides were correct, and so the closing admin changed the AfD to no consensus. Likewise, there have been several proposals on the Seamus talk page about merging the article with another article, but no consensus could be reached. I agree that a standalone article for Seamus is the correct decision. Debbie W. 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of editors have cited WP:NOTNEWS as grounds for deleting this article. Everything in the news is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. However, the Seamus incident is not a one-time news story. It has been in the news repeatedly since 2007, it has been covered by foreign newspapers, it has been mentioned in books, two super PACs have been formed just around this issue, national polls have been taken on this issue, and when Diane Sawyer interviewed the Romneys, this was the issue that the most viewers inquired about. As I said in my earlier post, the issue is not whether we believe that the story should have so much media coverage, but whether it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia's policy on notability of news states that notability is based on depth of coverage, duration of coverage, the diversity of sources. Based on the vast number and types of sources discussing Seamus over the last five years, it is pretty clear that the article meets the notability standard. It would be unusual for a topic with as much popular interest and media coverage as Seamus (dog) not to have a Wikipedia article. Debbie W. 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early articles:

Jennifer Parker (June 28, 2007). "Romney strapped dog to car roof". ABC News.

Neil Swidey & Stephanie Ebbert (June 27, 2007). "Journeys of a shared life". Boston Globe.

Ana Marie Cox (June 27, 2007). "Romney's cruel canine vacation". Time Magazine.

Blair Soden (June 29, 2007) "Dog on roof? What was it like for Romney's pooch?". ABC News.

Scott Helman (July 10, 2007). "Introducing Seamus Romney, 'Mr. Personality'". Boston Globe.

Foreign media:

Lara Marlowe (January 14, 2012). “Romney hounded by memory of Seamus the dog and 'Crate Gate'.” Irish Times.

Sonia Verma (February 16, 2012). “Treatment of family dog comes back to haunt Romney” Globe and Mail

Book:

The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman.

Super PACs:

Mitt is Mean - The Animal Lovers Against Romney Committee ::DogPAC

Polls:

Tom Jensen (March 20, 2012). "Polling on Romney's 'dog problem'". Public Policy Polling.

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS applies here. The article is merely a WP:COATRACK for political campaigning - the entire article is about politics, not the dog. The issue is already appropriately covered at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. That may not be enough for political partisans, but that's plenty for an encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS has been deprecated. Click on it: we shouldn't be linking to it. It "has been deprecated ... to draw attention to the actual policy, not just the potentially misleading shortcut." Can you tell us what actual policy you think this violates, and how? – OhioStandard (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I switched WP:NOTNEWS to WP:NOT#NEWS to prevent the use of a potentially misleading shortcut to our policy about routine news reporting. I can see how this must have been really confusing for you. My apologies. Deli nk (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, was that irony, Deli? But I was serious; the target of NOTNEWSPAPER - or its unfortunately-retained co-operative shortcut, NOT#NEWS - has changed. Is there some particular part of NOTNEWSPAPER that you think this article violates?, e.g. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopaedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."? – OhioStandard (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad that WP:DontbeaWP:POINTyWP:DICK as been deprecated. Deli nk (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: You're in the third grade. You should have said so, as that lets you off having to provide any policy-based rationale. – OhioStandard (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COATRACK. It's nothing but shameless political WP:ADVOCACY. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable event. Rename to Romney dog controversy to make scope clear per WP:BIO1E. SÆdon ^talk 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

( Moved following top-posted comment to current end-of-thread, along with one reply. No one's comments rate special prominence. Retaining "big" font and alt color used by Avanu, as a courtesy, although that's stretching it. - Ohiostandard 04:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC) )

COMMENT - While many editors seem intent on pointing out that the story of Seamus is notable, please be aware that notability is NOT in contention and is NOT the basis for which Editor Metropolitan90 nominated this article for deletion. The story clearly meets the General Notability Guideline, so it is kind of pointless to keep mentioning that as a point. Metropolitan90 essentially said this is a WP:ADVOCACY/ATTACK/GOSSIP piece, and that is the basis for deleting it. Thanks -- Avanu (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. The 'What Wikipedia is not' page states that advocacy and gossip articles are prohibited, but the Seamus (dog) article does not meet the definition of these prohibited articles.

WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

WP:GOSSIP: Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy.

Substantial efforts have been made by a number of editors to ensure that the Seamus article is written with a neutral point of view and with a high level of verifiability. The article quotes people critical of Seamus incident and people who defend Romney's actions, and uses the most neutral language possible to describe the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent political response. Because of the potentially controversial nature of the material, everything is the article is referenced, and some sections of the articles are double referenced. The article has 27 references, with most of them being to major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Herald, etc. Unless the Seamus article is written in a non-neutral manner, is libelous, or invades a person's privacy, it does not meet the above definitions of advocacy or gossip, and thus is not prohibited. I challenge someone to show me how the Seamus article violates the WP:ADVOCACY or WP:GOSSIP as defined above. Debbie W. 03:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The attempt to characterise this as "gossip" or "propaganda" is just more "I don't like it" hand waving. – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I see it as an attempt to downplay the standard criteria for inclusion here, which is a combo of WP:V and WP:RS and their various subpolicies. This article is well written and well sourced, meets WP:GNG and although it's a situation that makes Romney look bad in the eyes of many, it's not an attack or gossip piece. I don't think we should ignore the massive coverage of the issue on the grounds that it looks bad. WP is neutral, but it's not unbiased; neutrality is a bias towards reliable sources. SÆdon ^talk 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I actually sat down and carefully read the entirety of this article (rather than skimming or having a kneejerk 'WTF why is this in Wikipedia' reaction), I learned something. I think there is something of value to be had here. The problem is, this is an election year and POV-pushing editors who have monopolized the article keep trying to expand it beyond all reason, and attack and rebel against and serve ANI notices on the brave editor(s) who tries to keep it NPOV. Another problem is that the article has spawned the clearly useless and egregious article Obama Eats Dogs, which in my view should not exist on Wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination, and people are actually suggesting that that patent nonsense should be treated as equal to this one and merged together? That I definitely disagree with. Lastly, the only reason I can think of for this Seamus article to exist, however, is if it doesn't fit in the Romney article. If the salient bullet points of this article can be fit in the Romney article, then I suggest it go there, regardless of the disappointment that ensues (yes, that means all of you editors who went wild when that was suggested at the first AfD). And then let's be done with it. Nothing more needs to be said about the dog than is already said here. Stop adding to this article, stop edit warring with those who try to NPOV it. Enough is enough. Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RE: "Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article." This is an unfair and inaccurate framing of the debate. To presuppose that all those who !vote keep are trying to score points against a "rival" politician is Poisoning the well. For the record, I don't give a shit about Romney, Obama or 99% of the world's politicians. I don't care who wins the next election - be it presidential or otherwise - I don't vote, generally don't watch or read political news and am not interested in the subject of politics in general. Believe it or not but neutral editing is possible on political subjects so long as one is apolitical, and not everyone has a "dog in the race," or so to speak. SÆdon ^talk 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Debbie says this isn't ADVOCACY or GOSSIP, so I went through and counted sentence by sentence the bias in each. The intro is fairly neutral and matter of fact, so I have it listed as "statement of fact". Most of the sentences after that point seem to have some degree of bias, but it runs 6 to 17 sentences against Romney and while I can see that might be fair, the general tone of the article is not neutral as Debbie is trying to say.

Statement of Fact (seems like intro is the only place this happens): 6
Bias Neutral: 5
Bias Pro Rom: 6
Bias Anti Rom: 17

In short, the article exists to magnify the incident and provide a platform for advocacy. Its proper place is not within a standalone article. The General Notability Guideline is "a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and many editors have given reasons why this is not a suitable standalone article. The material might have a place in Wikipedia, but unless you are willing to respond on the basis of the argument given by the nominator, I don't see how we can effectively communicate on this point. -- Avanu (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I agree with everything Avanu just said. Merge it into Romney. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neutrality does not mean attaining a false balance, it means representing sources in proportion to their prominence. If RSs treat a subject negatively then our article will seem negative, the same holds true when coverage is positive. That being said, if the article is truly not neutral then it should be fixed, not deleted. Lastly, I don't know if you're relying on the acronym or the policy to make your point but nothing as written in those policies applies here imo. Even if your bias analysis were accurate, it wouldn't necessary follow that the article violates WP:NOT because it could be the case that it's a legitimate article with a bias problem which, again, should be fixed. SÆdon ^talk 04:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with User:Saedon. The neutrality of articles means that it reflects reliable sources. Read George W. Bush military service controversy, Gennifer Flowers, and Chappaquiddick incident, and you'll probably find more negative sentences than positive ones. However, that doesn't mean that the articles are unfairly biased against Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy. Debbie W. 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you can compare any of those articles with this one. A similar comparison would be to have an article about GWB and it be completely about his military service controversy. Gennifer Flowers actually did something, and her article also includes her other notable aspects of things that she did, granted it is focused on her most notable reason for having an article to begin with. Chappaquiddick is simply not comparable. The simple fact is that this article is about Gail Collins obsession with the story and her non-stop effort to bring it to national attention, and then of course the political talking points. Arzel (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Reposted *mostly* from my Talk page) Under the WP:SOAP section where GOSSIP resides:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda
nor Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political,
nor Opinion pieces
Articles must be balanced to put entries ... in a reasonable perspective (this bit specifically mentions current events, but this event is 29 years old, so what is a 'reasonable perspective' for that?)
nor for Scandal mongering,
"Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."

The Seamus article, as well as the Obama eating dogs article, and any of this ilk, exist to shine a light on a long ago issue in a way that promotes the very things that Wikipedia speaks against in the snippets above. Bill Clinton smoked marijuana at some point... does it deserve a standalone article? Herman Cain made unwanted advances with some women at work. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was alleged by Anita Hill to have sexually harassed her. Look at these things and see what has its own standalone article and what doesn't. Bill Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky has a separate article: Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton, but the marijuana isn't even mentioned in his biographical article. Seamus, while an emotional and interesting story, does NOT rise to the level of being independently notable. It is notable because of its association with Mitt Romney, but spinning it out into its own article is the non-neutral act that makes it into ADVOCACY or GOSSIP. Leaving it as a part of the Mitt Romney article would be appropriate as a footnote in his rise to candidate for president, but beyond that, it is not THAT noteworthy. You may personally feel that it is, but if you look at the overall picture and the various sorts of scandals in politics, this is practically nothing. How has it affected Mitt Romney's career? If you can say "not much", then that is about how much it deserves its own article. -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert at these AfD discussions, but is it proper to try to re-frame the whole debate like that halfway through? ~~Or is this just a crafty lawyerly tactic?~~Seems to me like a lot of intentional contortion and possible obsfucation there, so let me see if I understand the argument's chronology, based on your previous comments too: you're saying the main issue is not notability but rather advocacy/gossip (both?), but then you're saying notability is the issue because it's a separate article. Or it isn't because of the NOTNEWS arguments? Yet isn't this article considered a daughter of Mitt Romney because of the subsection on public perceptions there [4]? Articles get split up all the time when too long; their daughter articles are still de facto a part of the parent article, project-wise. Speaking of which, suggestions to merge this into the Romney article are unrealistic. I'm surprised that was even attempted after the first AfD. El duderino ^(abides) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, El duderino, I am putting the debate back where Metropolitan90 began when he opened this AfD. "Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article. I recommend deletion for this one. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)" (my underlining there)

The fact is, Metropolitan never claimed it wasn't notable. 'Score points in politics' and 'worthy'. Implied points there are advocacy and triviality. I'm not claiming it isn't notable either. It is notable, per the presumption in GNG, but it has not had much impact. You associated that level of impact with notability, but its more about providing a rationale for spinning this off. Once you spin it off, it clearly has problems under the WP:SOAP guidelines, and ALL articles must follow a NPOV policy. You lose the balance that is found by leaving it within its parent article of Mitt Romney (IF it even deserves a mention there). Like I said, Bill Clinton's marijuana use is absent from his biography. The point is that context matters, and you guys keep focusing back on one thing -- General Notability Guideline -- and that guideline says it isn't a guarantee of inclusion, and further it is a GUIDELINE, not a POLICY. Policies generally trump guidelines if they conflict and since Metropolitan90 based his rationale on a POLICY, specifically "WP:What Wikipedia is not" (particularly the WP:SOAP section), I suggest you address that before taking a tangent toward GNG (which is not in dispute). -- Avanu (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three points, Avanu: (1) Metropolitan90 didn't identify any policy basis at all for bringing this here. All he said, in effect, was "I don't like it, and I hope you don't either." (2) Concur with Saedon, who wrote, "To presuppose that all those who !vote keep are trying to score points against a 'rival' politician is poisoning the well." (3) This Afd has nearly depleted their reserves, and the Wikimedia Foundation is now critically low on bytes with boldface, color, & etc. Seriously, the repeated emphasis is beginning to seem rather shrill; can we please dial it back a bit? – OhioStandard (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Metropolitan90 DID identify a policy basis. You shouldn't have to speak in Wiki-ese to know how to read what he said and apply it to policy. I re-quoted his opening to assist with that understanding. If you choose not to see it as having any relation to any policy or guideline, I suppose that's your choice. "I don't like this" is not an acceptable AfD criteria, and I'm guessing Metropolitan90 knows better since they are an administrator and has been editing for 7 years at least now. As far as using color, bold, and font size to differentiate text, firstly, I dislike 'walls of text', and considering that my Wiki-signature is plain text and yours is fancy and green.... well you infer what you like there. -- Avanu (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to address your 'poisoning the well' comment. I'm certainly not claiming that people who !vote keep or people who !vote delete are doing so only because they like or dislike Mitt Romney or his dog. I could honestly not give one whit about all that. I just think it is inappropriate to have as a standalone article because we aren't a tabloid or a 'Ripley's Believe It or Not'. -- Avanu (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. I am in the UK and have no interest in US politics but the incident of the dog has been widely reported here (without identifying the dog by name). Oculi (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A whole Wikipedia article about a dog riding in a cage on the roof of a car for a few hours 21 29 years ago is an attack piece and shouldn't be an article. The "re-elect Obama" campaign committee should put this in their ads, not try to game it into Wikipedia. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia (showing how easily gamed it is) that this article even exists. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was 29 years ago, to nitpick. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I fixed. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason for deletion The required coverage of the article subject to meet wp:notability does not exist. The sources (and material)) are not about the subject, they are about what people tried to do with it. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the article is not about the dog per se, but about Romney's treatment of the dog and the extensive controversy that ensued, which has been widely reported and discussed in notable and reliable newspapers of record in the U.S. and overseas for over three months. The simple fix therefore for your objection is to change the title to ""Mitt Romney dog controversy". Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are reinforcing my point on the current article. But under your idea, it would be circular/incestuous/primary sourced. The coverage by media opposed to Rommney trying to maximize this story is itself the topic of the article, yet such (which is the actual subject) is used as "sources". North8000 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The coverage by media opposed to Rommney trying to maximize this story is itself the topic of the article," -- No, the topic of the article is the extensive public-reaction and political controversy that has ensued from the original 2007 news-story, which extensive controversy has been reported (and occasionally commented on) by international reliable-source newspapers of record. It's comparable (though to a lesser degree) to Monica Lewinsky, who has no notability outside of the scandal she was involved in. Both Lewinsky and the scandal have Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is already Romney's article then that is all it needs. ~~If for some reason this has a long-standing stigma (for several months and post election season) then maybe it would deserve its own article.~~ I see no reason for this to have its own article at this time; the media is often unreliable when it comes to election year gossip and this is clearly no exception. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need an article on every passing 'controversy' related to the 2012 election, given that there's a new one every week or so. This was and is a trivial story which has not yet proved significant enough to justify having an article on it. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. The controversy has definitely had extensive coverage in a wide variety of notable and reliable news sources for well over three months, from the January 14 Associated Press article through and beyond the April 17 LA Times article (and overseas as well, as mentioned by a poster above), and so on and so forth. Please do not equate this article with the trumped-up reactive meme Obama Eats Dogs, an obvious non-issue which lasted less than a week. Please do not give weight to those posters who created that article and who are promoting it here. The Mitt Romney dog controversy is not a meme, but a serious and enduring news item. I encourage those against this article to please (re)read it, slowly and carefully. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread media coverage makes it pass WP:GNG. But rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or something similar because the media coverage is about the incident, not the dog. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy", as expressed in first AFD. Cavarrone (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then all of the "sources" would still not be sources, they would be participants, and the only real sources would be sources that covered/ analyzed what those medias did with this story. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if newspapers report something that ends up sparking a controversy then they are no longer reliable sources? So, for instance, all the newspapers reporting the Columbia secret service controversy can't be considered reliable after the public strongly reacts, and in the same vein because the Romney story ended up being controversial the newspapers that were once reliable can no longer be considered reliable because that somehow makes them "participants?" And from then on sources can only be considered reliable if they are reporting about the reporting? SÆdon ^talk 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy isn't applicable because the initial Columbia story has both substance and sources, whereas this case it has neither (only the Romneys themselves are real sources on the current subject). So folks that want to save the article are proposing renaming it to the "controversy" which consists primarily of what the media did with this story. My point is not about reliability, it is that the current "sources" would then be the SUBJECT of the article, not sources on the subject. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitt Romney#Political positions and public perceptions. Otherwise, delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK. Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article provides great insight directly from the original Boston Globe reporter who brought this story up in 2007.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-08/news/30605151_1_romney-family-mitt-romney-dog

I'm 100% certain that both the Keep and Delete sides will find fodder for arguments, but regardless, its an interesting read. -- Avanu (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons that should be self evident, but they seem not to be, so: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:COATRACK, WP:SOAPBOX, and Biographies of dead dogs known for one event.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article meets the general notability guidelines; there are a number of citations indicating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the incident is notable enough in the public memory for it not to fall under WP:IINFO. An article of this quality should have never been listed for deletion in the first place, since it is neither advocacy nor gossip. Miniapolis (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. As a "bio" page, the subject fails WP:BLP1E. But as an article about an event, the event is notable. The POV-related issues should be worked out through the normal editing process, not through AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A further note in support of my Keep !vote: One legitimate role of Wikipedia is to help readers understand things they find mentioned elsewhere. There've been a slew of editorial cartoons on various points that use the dog-on-roof idea as a reference to Romney. Some involve dogs getting angry at Romney for his treatment of Seamus. Most, however, simply assume that the reader knows about Seamus, and comment on some other topic. Examples that I've seen: Seamus on the roof, kid in car explaining that he's there "because he asked to see Dad's tax returns". Elephant in crate on roof, begging Bachmann or Perry or Cain to free him from Romney. Romney in crate on roof while Tea Partier in tricorn hat drives car. In the same vein, we now have the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, and this report of Obama's remarks: "The highlight was a spoof Romney ad showing the former governor at the door of Air Force One with a dog cage on top of the aircraft." ([5]) People who dismiss this article as a mere political attack are ignoring the distinction between perpetrating an attack and reporting on an attack. There is no reason for Wikipedia, in reporting on the real world, to ignore those aspects of it that some editors find distasteful for one reason or another. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "attack" is trying to make the largest possible deal out of a small incident. In this current configuration and title, Wikipedia is participating in that, not covering it. 99.135.170.19 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This story originally gained currency not as an attack, but because a reporter thought the anecdote was revealing about Romney -- see the original Globe story. The characterization of "attack" is more clearly applicable to the subjects of numerous other Wikipedia articles, such as John Kerry military service controversy, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In each of those cases, a neutral Wikipedia article about a widely covered subject does have the side effect of giving a little more publicity to a partisan attack against a Democrat. Should those articles be deleted? JamesMLane t c 16:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesMLane, You've given me something to think about. I think it is important to be fair in our coverage of such things, and I think it is important for people to get accurate information somewhere if they are getting told about such things. I guess the question is, when have we crossed the line from being honest reporters of worthy encyclopedic subjects, to simply following a media that doesn't mind digging things up whether they are worthy or not? Some of these so-called controversies are just political games to see what will make their opponent bleed. Others are legitimately important and serious concerns. I don't see it being a good idea for Wikipedia editors to decide that standard, but at the same time, we are asked to determine what is encyclopedic. I'm hesitant to say Keep on an article that really is so fleeting and so old, but I've, for the moment, removed my Delete. Who knows.... -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Romney did a loud fart during a May 3rd appearance, media hostile to Romney would cover it as much as possible. Then the Obama re-election committee (who has been hard at work on Wikipedia) would create the "May 3rd 2012 Romney fart" article. And seriously point out that the fart meets wp:notability as it is written due to coverage in sources. Maybe we need this article about what a long dead dog did for a few hours 29 years ago to exist to show how messed up the Wikipedia system is in certain areas. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your "loud fart" hypothesis were correct, then Wikipedia would have articles on Romney's $10k bet, on his new mansion with the car elevator, on his stated fondness for being able to fire people, on his disparagement of a popular bakery's cookies, on his tepid response to Rush Limbaugh's latest outrage ("not the language I would have used" or some such is all Romney could muster), etc. Each of these things is a campaign incident that's generated some bad publicity for Romney. Do we lack articles about them because none of them has achieved the level of ongoing media coverage of the Seamus incident, or because George Soros is late with his check this month and we in the Liberal Cabal are petulantly deferring our planned edits in retaliation? You might try AGF and go with the former explanation. JamesMLane t c 00:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your later comments, I never made any of those straw-man statements like "cabal", or high level or organization as you inferred. I did say that the O'Bama re-election committee is hard at work on Wikipedia articles. While the "committee" word is a bit of hyperbole, the rest isn't. I've run into some pretty severe cases of this. At the O'Bama Presidency article, they are not only warring out any criticisms, they are even warring out / deleting talk page notices of the severe npov problems there. So yes, I'm a bit jaded at the moment of Wikipedia being tilted for political purposes, and when I see a whole article on a long dead dog spending a few hours on the roof of a car 29 years ago, it certainly smacks of such. On your former ones, I don't have the time to run it down but I'll bet that the same folks are working for maximum coverage of those events. And a few of those are real topics and I'd say say "rightly so". I was also pointing out how easily wp:notability is gamed on things like this. Even the most non-notable event by someone in a political contest will get covered by opposing media in which case it technically meets wp:notability. (although this one, as titled, does not have that coverage of the actual topic, the only real sources on that are the Romneys.) So if Romney does a loud fart, that will end up technically meeting wp:notability for a separate article on that fart. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only merit in this whole sad saga is that it reassures me, as a non-American, that the sort of garbage that pretends to be sensible politics in my country is equally matched by garbage in the USA. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One point that turned my opinion about the article is that I had previously thought the dog was on the car roof for maybe 4 to 5 hours max. Someone mentioned, on one of the discussions, that the article "is about 12 hours of a dog's life". That astounded me because I hadn't read the article carefully. Twelve hours is an entire day, from sun-up to sun-down, and clearly a time period that would have a massive affect on anything and anyone on a car roof for that long. That's when I changed my mind about the article and read it thoroughly. I don't think this is a trivial incident that is being overblown here. I think it's a notable incident that has affected public perception even beyond whatever political ammunition Romney's opponents in both parties have made of it, and that it is a legitimate topic of encyclopedic exploration (even if only, as a poster above noted, to get all the salient facts laid out in one NPOV and verifiable place, something that's not otherwise available to people who want to learn more about this legitimate topic of discussion, even beyond the fact that this is an election year). Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would argue that its been the most lasting political controversy that Mitt Romney has had. Although Romney has had some other controversies (e.g., $10,000 bet, 'I like to fire people', cookiegate), they all have been transitory in terms of their news coverage and popular influence, and thus do not warrant a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's policy on the notability of news states that notability is based on depth of coverage, duration of coverage, the diversity of sources. An incident which has coverage on cable news shows for a few days is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. However, the Seamus incident has been in the news for the last five years, has been covered by foreign media sources, and has been the topic of national polls, and has led to the formation of super PACs. That's clearly notable. Overall, I see Seamus as having the same influence as Jeremiah Wright, who has his own article. Debbie W. 04:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's where the nonsenical POV attitudes of people here come to the fore. How on earth can what Romney did to the dog be a political controversy? Just describing it as political is POV. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your neighbor did this, people might talk about it and move on. Its political because its about a politician. Its just one of those things. Like trying to pull a duck out of a quack. -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an even better expansion on that thought is, "I don't like my neighbor, and now he is running for a political office. One time 25 years ago he transported his dog on the roof of his car so I am going to use that to attack his character in order to make sure he doesn't get elected." Arzel (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitt Romney per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT. Article isn't even about the dog, just the controversy from 30 years ago involving its owner who is running for President. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's about the continued and ongoing controversy, which is still occuring now and which has been reported, discussed, and publically responded to continually and internationally since January 2012, not to mention the reportage/controversy in 2007 and beyond. Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Mitt Romney dog controversy. I concur with Saedon's view that we've seen unfortunate attempts "to downplay the standard criteria for inclusion here, which is a combo of WP:V and WP:RS and their various subpolicies. This article is well written and well sourced, meets WP:GNG and although it's a situation that makes Romney look bad in the eyes of many, it's not an attack or gossip piece. I don't think we should ignore the massive coverage of the issue on the grounds that it looks bad. WP is neutral, but it's not unbiased; neutrality is a bias towards reliable sources." This has been covered repeatedly, and broadly, since 2007, and polls show people's concerns over this will exert some meaningful influence on how they vote. There's no way we cannot have an article about it; like it or loathe it, it's a significant issue. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP is not made of paper. The event and its attendant controversy is already more than merely some random, passing news story and/or minor web meme (such as acccording to my view would be to-date say the fact that the Romneys' San Diego beachhouse planned addition's architectural design is to include a car elevator - CNNLINK); rather, per the sources, it must be rocognized as a notable controversy involving a public person and be provided coverage according to WP's guidelines.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason we have kept the santorum controversy. As other have noted,the AfD is not about whether the subject meets GNG, it obviously does. If the article was called How Mitt Romney abused his dog then I would clearly advocate for a name change.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2[edit]

Merge to Mitt Romney, the dog is important as it relates to Mitt Romney, not as its own entity. There is plenty of info in the article that could stand to be consolidated as well. Ducknish (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the best way to evaluate the notability of controversial articles is via rigorous analysis using Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's policy on the notability of events gives 5 factors in evaluating an event -- (1) lasting effect, (2) geographic scope, (3) depth of coverage, (4) duration of coverage, and (5) diversity of sources. So lets look at the Seamus article.

(1) Lasting effect -- "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects." Uncertain Two super PACs have been founded with the solely as a result of the 1983 road trip, and a Public Policy Polling survey indicates that 35% of Americans are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney because of the Seamus incident. However, it remains to be seen how much influence this issue will have on the US presidential election or Mitt Romney future political career.

(2) Geographical scope -- "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Pass There is a substantial amount of US media coverage of this topic, and the story has been reported repeatedly and in-depth by the foreign press (e.g., Globe and Mail, Irish Times).

(3) Depth of coverage -- "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)." Pass The Seamus incident was discussed in the book The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, and had a feature story in Time Magazine. Furthermore, there have been a number of articles analyzing what the Seamus story indicates about the role of pets in American culture[6][7].

(4) Duration of coverage -- "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Pass The Seamus incident has been in the news extensively since 2007, and will likely be in the news continuously for the rest of the year.

(5) Diversity of sources -- "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." Pass There is significant domestic and international media coverage of this incident. The Seamus story been covered by the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, International Business Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Irish Times, Guardian, Globe and Mail, and many other newspapers and media sources.

Overall Different people may come to different conclusions using the Wikipedia notability of events guidelines. However, I think that the Seamus article meets most of the criteria for notability, and should be kept. Debbie W. 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this has not been "extensively" in the press since 2007. While it is true that Gail Collins has been "extensively" obsessed with it since then, one persons extreme dislike of Romney does not matter much. Most of the covereage has been a mirror of Gail Collins obsession with the story. It probably would not even be a story if she did whine about it every time she typed up a story. I would say that 4 and 5 Fail, what is a story, however, is Gail Collins obsession with Seamus. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article pertained to pretty much anywhere other than the US would there be so many people calling for the article to be kept? Somehow I doubt it. (Note that this isn't intended to be a delete argument, just an observation.) --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannus Mundi, You bring up a good point but I think that we must focus on what news coverage and impact the Seamus story has had, not whether we believe it should have received so much news coverage. Each country has its own concept of what is acceptible or unacceptible for politicians. In some countries, the president or prime minister having a mistress is a non-issue, whereas it's big issue in English-speaking nations. In some countries, espousing the wrong religious beliefs or being from the wrong tribe is political career-stopper, whereas in many countries it's not. Whether the Seamus incident would be viewed the same way in a foreign country is not really relevant. In the end, I think our job at Wikipedia is to determine whether a topic is notable, not whether it should have become notable. Debbie W. 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about whether it's acceptable or not. It's whether it's significant or not. And it's only significant to the Romney's opponents and the tabloid media on their side. For Wikipedia to even be mentioning it is playing into the hands of those playing a political game. It's taking sides politically. We should not be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with this assessment, HiLo (although I still maintain my delete/merge vote). We are not here to subjectively judge whether it's significant -- the issue is whether it has obtained notability based upon the coverage. To illustrate, we don't have a Wiki page on every person who has ever disappeared. However, we do have a page on Natalee Holloway , not because she is more important than the other (perhaps less white and/or attractive) people who have disappeared, but because the 'tabloid media' covered the case ad nauseum. If this story were to really have legs, then yes, we would have to include it as a Wiki page. The story wouldn't be any less asinine, but something that catches the attention of the public at large for a substantial amount of time is noteworthy. I do think it's ok for us to judge the liklihood of a story really sticking around and impacting the media. I suspect that this entire issue is little more than a flash-in-the-pan meme that deserves a footnote on the 2012 election page and/or the Romney page. However, if I am wrong and this is THE story of the 2012 election, it is not for us to exclude the article because it demonstrates all that is wrong with our political system.JoelWhy (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully disagree with that. Wikipedia should not be driven by the tabloid media on any topic at all. We are not a tabloid outlet. If part of the more serious and responsible media described the hype surrounding this matter (and we all know that's all it is), then we could include something paralleling that reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if the sources for this article were Gawker or the New York post, but that's not the case. Our sources are not tabloids, they're impeccable; major newspapers and news stations across the world over a period of at least a year. I don't think there's a major paper that hasn't done a story (though I suppose it's possible). Perhaps you mean that the subject is only worthy of a tabloid, which may be the case but that's not for us as editors to decide. We don't give weight and ascribe notability based on our feelings as editors, we do so based on the reliability of the sourcing, and that's one thing this article is not lacking. SÆdon ^talk 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And normally, while coverage is an actual gauge of notability, in this case coverage merely means that there is media opposed to Romney attempting to give even the most trivial negative thing regarding him legs. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, I find your argument most unusual. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but are you basically saying that we should ignore Wikipedia's notability of events guideline which puts a strong emphasis on the depth, duration, and diversity of news coverage? If you believe that media coverage should not a factor for assessing the notability of this article, what should we use as the standard of notability? Debbie W. 04:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that there is much depth and diversity in the media coverage. Most of it would come from shallow, tabloid style outlets which don't want Romney elected. That's neither a deep nor diverse cross-section of the media. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to trust my word or doubt it, you can check for yourself. Just pasting what Debbie wrote above (removing the last two as they actually are tabloids): New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, International Business Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Irish Times, and the Guardian. Are you going to contend that's not a deep or diverse cross section of the media? SÆdon ^talk 05:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Debbie W, my comment was about the coverage criteria in wp:notability which folks keep saying is a basis for keeping this. And and how it misfires / is easily gamed in cases where the media is a player in the event (trying to give a non-notable story legs as a part of their advocacy against that candidate) rather than a coverer of it. North8000 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was a Wiki rule that allows for the exclusion of articles if conservative editors decide that the stories are all part of a liberal media conspiracy.JoelWhy (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this comment might be misplaced. It's under mine but bears no relationship to anything I said. 14:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are advocating that the article should not be included because the media is perpetuating a story in order to advocate against Romney. That sounds a whole lot like 'it's a liberal media conspiracy' to me.JoelWhy (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about a conspiracy? (or did you mean that as just a straw man revision of what I actually said?) No "conspiracy" or even-co-ordination of actions is needed for this to occur. It just needs a few newspapers etc. opposed to the person, behaving naturally, in a way that further promotes their preference. A simple lack of objectivity standards will accomplish that; no conspiracy is required. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can rename it the Seamus Dog Incident perhaps. Massive media coverage, used against him in his campaign, and "As of March 2012, New York Times columnist Gail Collins had mentioned the car trip more than 50 times.[29]" You hear about this in the media everywhere regularly. Dream Focus 03:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail's obsession with the story doesn't mean much other than she really dislikes Romney, if anything her obsession proves just how non-notable the story really is. For years, she made sure to whine about it every time she wrote a story. The fact that it never got much attention until Romney appeared likely to be Obama's opponent in 2012 only shows you just how much this is a product of the election and is purely a political talking point being used by the left to attack the character of Romney. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic behind the idea that because an even is notable due to political issues it is therefore not notable. The fact that this story is notable because Romney is a well known politician and possible Republican nominee doesn't reduce the notability of the subject one bit - that's exactly why it's notable. Of course if you or I did such a thing it would never even make the news, but that makes sense because we're not national candidates. Politics has the ability to make issues and events notable that would otherwise not be, this isn't an argument against inclusion. If we decided to limit the encyclopedia to articles that were notable but only when not because of politics we would loose a lot of articles on obviously notable subjects. SÆdon ^talk 04:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. This is shallow, tabloid, POV garbage. There may be a lot of it, but it is still shallow, tabloid, POV garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your personal opinion on the content of most of the major newspapers of the US and many internationally. Our opinions, however, do not matter one bit here. SÆdon ^talk 05:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking at the comments and the coverage, I tend to have to come down that this is notable (significant press coverage). Thus if it is notable, it should stay. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit with some regret. On a personal level, I think this is not important enough to be included - but the coverage in the press is significant, and the subject meets the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article - my personal opinion is not relevant here, the notability criteria is, however! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there is NO WAY that this article can ever be anything but ADVOCACY and GOSSIP. Not much possible debate that it is NOTABLE in the sense of media attention. EXACTLY the same as "Obama eats dogs". The only people who have any actual factual knowledge of either story are either Romneys or Obamas, and neither set has given out any ACTUAL FACTS or BACKGROUND that is in any way negative. EVERY other pseudofact that puffs up either article is, by definition, POV. ALL commentary is political (let's just quit the fiction that there is ACTUAL Science), and should be treated as such; merger of the two unsubstantive pseudoissues as competing political memes, which is what they are, is the appropriate action.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking, right? Please read the article before you make bizarre assertions. All the negative facts on the Romney case came from the Romney family. Not to mention, the article is about the continuing and lasting and very substantive controversy surrounding those negative facts revealed by the Romney family. Are you going to delete the articles on Monica Lewinsky as well? This is no meme; please actually read the article. Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - Fwiw, I do remember an article about Zhirinovsky's ass in recent Russian elections, and that page is apparently still around. That being said, maybe it is not a bad idea to set up one article for such "election elephants" (ELE-ELE) and just keep them all in one place (per election). That will help with NPOV. Invariably there are trivia and gossip that gets blown up by supporters on both sides. If they get standalone articles they just seem to get bigger and bigger. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.