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

AfDs for this article:
Seamus (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(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]

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]
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]
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. Monty845 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]
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]
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]
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? Monty845 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]
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. Monty845 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]
Original speedy delete (A7) and corresponding review. Arzel (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(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]
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]

Arbitrary Break 1

[edit]
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]
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]
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.

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]

( 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) )

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. SÆdontalk 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. SÆdontalk 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]
  • 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]
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? SÆdontalk 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

Arbitrary Break 2

[edit]
(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]
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. SÆdontalk 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? SÆdontalk 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]
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. SÆdontalk 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. SÆdontalk 05:32, 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]
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.
More