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 merge to Mitt Romney. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Following a request for me to look at this again, I have spent some time reviewing the decision. When I read through this, I saw that the general consensus was to keep the content in some form, either as an article or as part of the Mitt Romney article (although this is not a vote, 13 said to keep or to merge, 6 said to delete). However, the arguments for keep or merge are so close, that the only realistic way of closing this should have been as no consensus. I am therefore changing my close to such, with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. My apologies for not leaving a rationale upon the original closure. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus (dog)[edit]

Seamus (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 17. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge -- Seamus (dog) is an article referring to the dog of Mitt Romney, which was involved in a controversial 1983 road trip where the dog was transported on the roof of Romney's car for 11 hours. Seamus was discussed extensively during the 2008 US President race, and the issue has been discused in this year's Presidential race. If you type in 'Seamus Romney' under Google, you will get more than 200,000 hits, including links to major newspapers such as the Boston Globe and the New York Times. When I initially created this article, I thought about naming it the 'Seamus incident' and linking it to the Mitt Romney article, but I didn't because nobody refers to the event as the 'Seamus incident'. It's simply 'Seamus', or in some cases 'Seamus Romney'. Furthermore, Seamus has had a much more lasting influence than many of the dogs of famous people which have their own Wikipedia articles. In the article for famous dogs, there are dogs which have articles only because of their owners. For example, Lou dog, owned by Bradley Nowell, and Diamond who may have been owned by Isaac Newton, each have an article independent of their human masters. That being said, I'm also okay with merging this article into the article on Mitt Romney if others believe that it the best option. Addendum -- After seeing how controversial it will be to merge the Seamus article into the Mitt Romney article (see discussion below under Tvoz post), I think Keep is the best option.Debbie W. 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (ie. Merge, but deleting the majority of content). Not notable apart from one incident, and even that wasn't a very notable incident. Note that Lou dog has appeared in multiple songs and albums and even so does not, in fact, have an independent article. Diamond is closer, but I think destroying 20 years notes of Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest physicist of all time, has a bit more to be said for it than making a minor dent in the campaign of one presidential candidate. There's also the BLP aspect, since the thing that Seamus is notable for is a negative issue about a living person. I think a couple of sentences in Mitt Romney should cover it. --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I will put my cards on the table and stipulate that I originally deleted this article under ((speedy)) A7 deletion criterion. My view is that while Mr Romney is clearly notable, his former dog is not; the incident described in the "incident" is primarily about Mr Romney, not his dog. For the record "Lou dog" has a paragraph within Bradley Nowell, not his own article. A seperate paragraph with the article on Mr Romney about his dog would clearly be acceptable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Mitt Romney or to one of its spinouts. If this dog were human, BIO1E would say that a stand-alone article is not warranted. However, this project seeks to cover everything that others have covered, and this dog has been discussed. The dog should get at least one sentence with the references in one of the Romney articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL, part of WP:NOT, one of Wikipedia's core policies, which states that Wikipedia is not to be used for "scandal-mongering" and that "articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." 2012 is a major election year in the United States, and it's important that we keep a watchful eye on relevant articles, not only in order to prevent Wikipedia from being used for advocacy or promotion of particular candidates, but also to prevent it from being used to tarnish particular candidates. Wikipedia should not be used as an attack platform. This article exists solely to highlight an event in Mitt Romney's past – an event which has been used repeatedly to mildly embarrass and/or denigrate Romney since he is running for president. The event has by no means resulted in a significant scandal; it has just resulted in a series of negative jokes by Romney's detractors. And that's fine for them – but Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and allowing this article would make Wikipedia into a sort of attack platform. It's not as though web-surfers, without this article, would have a hard time finding juicy gossip about Mitt Romney's dog. It seems that Gail Collins cracks unfunny jokes about the dog-on-the-car incident in nearly every one of her New York Times columns, and numerous websites clearly contain information about the anecdote. Wikipedia doesn't have to be one of them – and, per policy, it shouldn't be one of them. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not create this article to propagate a scandal. I created it because I saw a lot of news coverage of this issue, and I was surprised that it wasn't at least mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Just because something is negative against a living person doesn't mean that it cannot be mentioned in an article. It just means that we need to be careful that the information is not libelous, that it is presented with a NPOV, and it is not given an undue influence. WP:NOTSCANDAL says the following: scandal mongering, something heard "through the grapevine" or gossip. 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. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. The article is well-referenced, and includes both a quotes from Mitt Romney and individuals who criticized the incident. Whether the incident is given an undue influence is a trickier question, but considering the amount of news coverage of this incident in 2008 and 2012, I'd say no. I'm okay with merging this article into the article on Mitt Romney, but I wonder if the same concerns will arise that that this is just an attack???Debbie W. 04:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Debbie, please note that I did not write that you created the article to propagate a scandal. My exact words were: "This article exists solely to highlight an event in Mitt Romney's past – an event which has been used repeatedly to mildly embarrass and/or denigrate Romney since he is running for president." The distinction is important. Your motives and intentions when creating the article are not as important as the effect of the article's existence. The effect is to perpetuate, accentuate, and amplify a negative anecdote about a candidate for public office, when the actual significance of the incident is probably enough to justify a mention in the article on Romney's campaign but certainly not enough to justify a separate article. The referencing is not the issue here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia reports on matters that have entered the public discourse, even if some editors think that the public shouldn't be paying attention to those matters. This has been widely written about; Romney was asked about it on television by Chris Wallace; and in the current campaign, one of Romney's opponents (Gingrich) included it in a TV ad. The incident has also been characterized as showing Romney's level-headed crisis management skills, and I'll try to dig up that citation and add it to the article. JamesMLane t c 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Addendum: I've now added the information to provide some balance to the article. It would also be reasonable to balance it by adding a report of any notable opinion deriding the whole flap as being intended solely "to mildly embarrass and/or denigrate Romney since he is running for president." JamesMLane t c 22:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• James, at the risk of stating the obvious, not everything that enters the public discourse is an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Whether or not I think the public should be paying attention this incident is not the issue (for the record, I don't mind them doing so). Your expansions of the article, while well-intentioned, do not resolve the fundamental issue here, which is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, unbiased site. Including an article covering a negative anecdote about a candidate, when the scandal (or "non-scandal") is of little lasting significance, has the same practical effect as allowing Wikipedia to be used as a platform for attacking the candidate. This goes for any candidate of any party in any notable election. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See the Mark Halperin quotation in the article. The top political analyst for Time magazine says it has political significance. As for "lasting", well, 100 years from now no one will care about the Whitewater controversy or about the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but we still give these right-wing attack points their own articles. Should those articles be deleted? JamesMLane t c 05:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Halperin quote certainly supports your position. However, comparing this anecdote with the Whitewater investigation is ridiculous; that was a full-fledged scandal, was the subject of far more press coverage, and eventually led to Bill Clinton's impeachment. The birther movement, nutty though it is, has also attracted more press coverage than this anecdote. A better parallel (involving a Democrat, as you desire) would be, say, the discovery four years ago that Hillary Clinton's claims of dodging bullets on the tarmac in Bosnia were false. There was a burst of media coverage at the time; it was an embarrassment for Clinton's campaign; and (although I cannot recall specific examples) it was probably mentioned for humorous effect much as the dog-on-the-car incident is mentioned to mock Romney today. And if you were to ask me whether we should have an article on that negative anecdote about Hillary Clinton, I would say certainly not. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clear that Whitewater got more press attention than Seamus. My point was about your call for "lasting" significance; I don't think that notability needs to be permanent. Your comparison to Bosnia isn't perfect, either. The Seamus affair became public earlier than the Clinton-Bosnia thing, so it's clear that Seamus has demonstrated much more staying power in terms of media attention. As to a separate article about Clinton-Bosnia, I wouldn't say "certainly not"; I'd say "follow WP:SS." It's mentioned in her main bio article. If significant additional information were generated, such that putting all that information into the main bio would constitute undue weight, then a more detailed daughter article would be justified. That's the situation we're in here. Some people are saying "Merge" but, I fear, will be nowhere to be found when the attempted merger is resisted as undue weight. I appreciate your recognition of the import of the Halperin quotation, and I'll add this one, from a recent article in The Daily Beast that was cited in this article but has now been eliminated: "Topping anyone’s list of riveting dog stories has to be the never-gets-old tale of the dear departed Seamus. ... [It] has to rank among the all-time Great Family Stories in the annals of American politics. Talk about revealing a candidate’s character—could it get any better than this? ... But during a campaign in which even the Mitt-Bot’s hair seems uptight, this event also illuminates other important issues." JamesMLane t c 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a merger would only incorporate key information from this article into the target article(s), so presumably undue weight would not be an issue. I think that if this is not deleted, it should be merged, and I will personally advocate for the information's inclusion in the target article if this AfD is closed as "merge." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two problems: (1) Given that some people didn't want any information about this in the Mitt Romney bio, we could expect lengthy edit wars over what qualifies as "key information". (2) Merger ignores the advantages of WP:SS. Some readers will want only the key information, but others will want more detail. A brief summary in the main article, accompanied by a wikilink to the more detailed daughter article, accommodates both groups. Another advantage is that the inevitable edit warring about what goes into the main article is more subdued if the excluded information is still available on Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far I can see, you are extremely wrong in your interpretation of WP:NOTSCANDAL. Simply this (minor) event is not a "rumour" or "something heard through the grapevine", but is a well-covered and controversial event (unless you don't consider Time, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times as gossip newspapers) and its veracity was confirmed by the same Romney. WP is neutral, but this does not mean that WP should censor (big or little) controversities that involve people, companies or organizations, please read WP:YESPOV to understand what means NEUTRAL in Wikipedia. Cavarrone (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cavarrone, I'm aware of the Wikipedia definition of neutrality, and I'm not suggesting that we should censor this negative anecdote about Romney. I'm saying that we should not give it a separate article, because that would perpetuate, accentuate, and amplify the negative anecdote in a way that is unacceptable for a neutral encyclopedia. I concede that WP:NOTSCANDAL was not the best shortcut to link, and I have changed it to simply WP:NOT, because the sentence that I quoted notes a principle that is very much ingrained in Wikipedia policy. Please read my whole argument. The idea of undue weight is also relevant here on a macro level, I think. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seamus's fame is assured. (Cf.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinkerbell (dog)? ;~)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Tinkerbell (dog) "wrote a book" ... and even so is merely a redirect. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney per SmokeyJoe & Debbie W.--JayJasper (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has received extensive coverage in the media. Furthermore, according to Time magazine's political reporter, Mark Halperin, it has political impact: "So this issue of electability, for a lot of voters is a serious issue — I'm not kidding — Gov. Romney once putting his family dog on the roof of the car and taking him on a long trip." [1] Halperin made that observation in the course of asking one of Romney's opponents, Newt Gingrich, about the issue, which followed Gingrich's including it in a television ad attacking Romney. The calls for merger are chimerical. As one who put in considerable effort just to get a passing mention of this into the Romney bio, I see little chance that an attempt to expand the coverage there would succeed. Having a mention in the bio with more detail in a daughter article is the correct approach under WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm okay with the concept of merging the Seamus article into the Mitt Romney article, I share the same concern. I initially made a minor reference to it in the Romney article, and it was removed. Specifically, I mentioned it as an issue (among many) that came up during the 2012 primaries, and I was told that by another editor that they weren't sure how they wanted to handle the dog issue: "2012 presidential campaign: however we handle the dog story, this won't be it"Debbie W. 22:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should certainly be mentioned in a sentence or two in Mitt Romney and/or possibly the campaign articles; that's not the same as deserving a separate article. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Already deleted once and I don't see how it is any different now than it was a couple of weeks ago. This dog did absolutly nothing of note, and no one has provided any evidence why the dog itself is notable in any aspect other than having been owned by Romney and riding on the top of his car once. Arzel (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would redirecting to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 be the best option? All the press concerning the dog is a by-product of the campaign, after all. Certainly, the issue would not have sparked anywhere near the publicity it has received if Romney were not running for president.--JayJasper (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we decide to redirect, I suggest that we redirect to the Mitt Romney article since the Seamus issue has been recurring -- it came up during his 1994 Senate run, his 2008 Presidential campaign, and once again in 2012.Debbie W. 11:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as a dog, Only notable as a subject of a single anecdote, and we all know just how wondrously accurate anecdotes are as sources for fact. An anecdote is always presented as based on a real incident[1] involving actual persons, whether famous or not, usually in an identifiable place. However, over time, modification in reuse may convert a particular anecdote to a fictional piece, one that is retold but is "too good to be true". Collect (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney, or Keep and Rename. The article is well-referenced and the subject appears notable, but with the current title and in the current state seems to meet WP:BLP1E. Cavarrone (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with the idea of keeping the article but renaming it, either the "Seamus Controversy" or "Seamus Incident" There is some precident for that -- for example there is an article named Chappaquiddick incident linked to the article for Edward Kennedy. I did a Google search, and I got very few hits for "Seamus Controversy", but I did get a number of hits for "Seamus incident", in reference to Mitt Romney.Debbie W. 12:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mitt Romney. The subject is funny, and notable, but I consider it a side-note in a representation of the character of Mitt Romney and his family. Since biographies should include anecdotes to represent character traits of the subject, this story is apt.TheThomas (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per JamesMLane - the fact is ludicrous as it is, this matter has gotten a great deal of attention, and people come to Wikipedia for illumination on matters in the news. I would be ok with it as a redirect to a section in Mitt Romney, but that article has a lot to cover as Mitt has had a varied career, and that article probably can't support more than a mention with a link here which as JamesMLane reminds us, is appropriate under WP:SS. As to whether the "anecdote" is a source for fact - I haven't seen denials from the Romney camp. they just spin it differently. Tvoz/talk 00:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What spin? This event happened over 25 years ago and until 2007 was never an issue as far as I can tell. The only "spinning" if from the left trying to make this into a political issue. Arzel (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The story took place in 1983 but only became public in 2007 when the Boston Globe included it in their biographical series on Mitt. As Tvoz says, the facts aren't in dispute. And it hasn't really been a left vs. right issue, but rather has captured the interest of those who think he mistreated the dog (but if so, it was clearly out of a lapse in judgement not malice) and those who think it illustrates something psychologically telling about Mitt. See this recent follow-up piece in the Globe for more on that angle.
    • Also note that the Seamus story is already included in the Mitt Romney article, via a quick mention in one sentence and an explanatory Note with more detail. So the "merge" option isn't really relevant here; adding anything more to that article would be giving it undue weight. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • More and more, I think that the merger of Seamus article with the Mitt Romney article will be extremely contentious. If a large amount of detail is given about the incident, it will be challenged as undue weight. On the other hand, to only give the incident one sentence in a footnote marginalizes an incident for which there has been a lot of media coverage. I agree with Tvoz that people come to Wikipedia to get more detail on issues that are in the news, and I don't think that Wikipedia can provide that level of detail unless this is a standalone article. Because of that, I feel that this article should be kept.Debbie W. 03:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any problem in merging the current article in a section named ie "The Seamus Controversity", expecially if the merging is supported by consensus in AfD and has a strong and substantial support of reliable sources. On the other hand, some parts of the current article (the lead, the supplementary information section) could be easily cut off. Cavarrone (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cavarrone, you don't see a problem, but the editors of that article may not see it the way you do, even with an AfD consensus here - see the extended discussion on Talk:Mitt Romney that JamesMLane alluded to above, for example. The current approach seems the most acceptable all around. We do need to be concerned about questions of undue weight in the main article which, again, is supposed to be a bio of the man's whole life and career, and can't really support a section on this matter while balancing the presentation of his multiple careers, family & background, etc. Tvoz/talk 08:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • If those above are worried that a merge would result in undue weight then they are acknowledging that the current article is nothing more than a POV Fork and should not belong at all. If such detail could never sustain itself in the primary article than a POV fork is clear. Arzel (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I seriously disagree that a separate article for Seamus constitutes a POV Fork. A POV fork refers to a separate article to reflect a point of view that is so non-mainstream that it cannot be added to main article on the topic. The article on POV forks gives this example: If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. The article on Seamus has nothing to do with points of view, since everyone agrees with the facts of the incident. It's just an question of how important the incident is, and how much weight we give it.

The Seamus article should be viewed as a spinoff article from the main Mitt Romney article, where the Mitt Romney article very briefly mentions the Seamus incident, and the Seamus page discusses it in detail. Wikipedia strongly endorses this practice: Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article.Debbie W. 22:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would only classify as a spinoff if it were ever mentioned at any length within the primary article. This level of information could never exist in the primary article because of weight concerns, but the description of WP:CONTENTFORK this article is clearly a way to present this information that would never be incorporated into the main article. Arzel (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every "more detailed article" that's created per WP:SS has a "level of information [that] could never exist in the primary article because of weight concerns...." That's precisely why we use summary style. JamesMLane t c 04:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken and the egg. The assumption you make is that any level of detail would be included as such in the main article. In which case this article should be "Mitt Romney Dog Incident" since by your arguement it is the incident that is notable and not the actual dog. What exactly did the dog do? Arzel (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for renaming, not deletion. I'd have no problem with a move to a different name (although, in light of our article title style, your suggestion should be modified to "Mitt Romney dog incident" without the caps). Also acceptable would be "Mitt Romney dog controversy", given that some people think the incident reflects favorably on Romney for his level-headed crisis management. JamesMLane t c 16:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the concept of keeping the article, but renaming it. My suggestion would be the "Seamus Incident".Debbie W. 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus didn't do anything, other than to crap on the car. If that is the story than I have a ton of really good dog stories. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - already used by Newt Gingrich et al. in attack ads. Disclosure: I am not a fan of either candidate, and am an animal lover. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a dog lover as well, and it has nothing to do with this issue. Arzel (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable. Vsion (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney - The information is notable but the dog is (was) not. Raitchison (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a notable portion of Romney's life and enough information is available to sustain an independent article apart from the main article on Romney. Dismas|^(talk) 01:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS - far from being 'a notable portion of Romney's life', this is just another transient media controversy as part of an ongoing election campaign, and we'll doubtless have 1001 more to come. I don't see why this deserves an article any more than Mitt Romney's tax returns or Newt Gingrich's moonbase or whatever next week's story is. A mention in one of the various articles related to the 2012 election campaign would be appropriate; a separate article is not. (And no, the dog is not notable in its own right either.) Robofish (talk) 22:47, 2 February 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.