Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Consolidated survey

Consolidated Survey

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * There is clearly no consensus for any of the proposed options. HHIAdm (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination)

There are currently a lot of proposals floating about regarding the existance and name of this article, and it's better if all the proposals can be evaluated at the same time. Based on this talk page, other talk pages, and the former Seamus AfD, a number of proposals have been put forward. Please comment on which option you support, and highlight your vote in boldface. I am remaining neutral. HHIAdm (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Keep article as "Seamus (dog)"
 * 2. Merge with "Obama Eats Dog" and rename as "Mitt Romney dog controversy"
 * 3. Merge with "Obama Eats Dog" and rename as "Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election"
 * 4. Delete the "Seamus (dog)" article
 * 5. Other -- please specify
 * '''6. Merge ALL such articles into an appropriate parent article, such as PETA, Animal Rights, America's Funniest Politicians or wherever trivial political gaffes, goofs or silly things go.


 * Support Option 3, per my comments here and elsewhere. Kelly  hi! 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1. I believe that any attempt to merge Seamus (dog) and Obama Eats Dogs meme will result in endless edit wars over how much coverage each should get. Keep both articles as separate entities. Debbie W. 12:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 5: Obama Eats Dogs meme is not going to survive its AfD as a standalone article, but it has zero to do with the Romney incident. Whether it is merged to an Obama article, an election article, or simply deleted is irrelevant here. This article should be moved to a title reflecting its status as an incident, such as Mitt Romney dog controversy. The idea of a unified "Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election" article is ludicrous: it would be synthesis of the worst form under the most misguided attempt at compromise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 The idea that the Obama Eats Dogs meme is unrelated to the Romney Dog issue is immpossible to comprehend.  The Seamus issue began as a political meme against Romney, and the Obama dog eating meme is a response to the Seamus meme.  You may not like it, but that is the world we live in today.  Thank Gail Collins for making a huge deal out of Seamus without making sure that Obama didn't have a mirrored issue in his past.  Arzel (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are so many different places where this discussion is occurring now, I pity the poor admin that tries to sort it all out. Having said that, I favor either 2 merging both, or 4, as long as the Obama Eats Dogs article is deleted as well.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, either way. —Torchiest talkedits 15:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 5: Delete both this article and the Obama Eats Dogs meme as utterly unencyclopedic. Neither article will stand the test of time. 72Dino (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 Agree with ChrisC, this should be one of the options above, as it was one of the earlier proposals in another thread above. Although time will tell if the political reaction, including the Obama incident for (false) comparison, gains enough traction for a qualified mention in the "Mitt Romney dog controversy" (not an ideal title but better than others offered, and it has precedence). El duderino (abides) 17:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This doesn't seem the appropriate venue for this discussion. Deleting this article or merging it into another should be decided at the AfD discussion. Gobōnobo  + c 17:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Option 3, they are equally silly political memes. Not a lot of evidence that they were important in 2008. Would argue that the "5"s above advocating deletion of both, also support putting them together and letting the fake "dog" debate rage on, on the same page.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 6 - Because honestly articles like these are not on most of the electorate's mind. They are not enduring or standalone notable. They represent a clear violation of WP:GOSSIP and simply serve to distract people from real issues. -- Avanu (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a winner. Both of these violate NOTNEWS and are inherently POV exercises of political partisans. Both have been hauled before AfD, and neither should — or probably will — survive. "Dogs in the Campaign" would be an original essay and will end up at AfD also if started. Just look above to see how much wasted editorial energy these inane articles have caused. Of course, there are drone bees at WP who are here for NOTHING BUT talk page flame wars... They need to find a new hobby. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 5 Delete both this an the Obama one per Avanu above. Second choice: 2, maybe 3, and then delete it a few months down the road when it all blows over. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment @ Dwainwr123/Debbie W : Do not remove posts from the Talk page and don't assume something is farcical simply because you don't understand it. -- Avanu (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 but secondary support for Option 5 per Chris Cunningham/thumperward comment above, meaning that I'm OK with a move to Mitt Romney dog controversy provided that Seamus (dog) is kept as a redirect. The idea that all political controversies involving dogs belong in one article is silly.  Sarah Palin was criticized for hunting wolves from a helicopter and Chris Christie was criticized for using a New Jersey state helicopter for personal business, so should we have an article on Helicopter controversies of Republican governors?  (No, we should not, in case my point isn't clear.) JamesMLane t c 18:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.