Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Romney video leak


 * 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   redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Romney video leak

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Proposed for deletion with the following rationale: "This article was written too quickly (and in a sloppy manner). It is notable enough to be a page. see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER". While I agree that this article was made WP:TOOSOON and we might forget about this event even in the next few months, I think this demands a proper discussion first. Weak delete (or merge to Mitt Romney Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 ). Keφr (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Support for deletion: I do not see how this subject warrents an entry into Wikipedia. This is obviously a political move and this artical should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikenbridge (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Just another article created during the political climate leading up to the elections about some minor gaffe that a candidate made. Yes, there are current news articles that talk about this, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is nothing to indicate that this has any lasting signifigance.  The incident is already discussed at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and that is about the extent of the coverage that this topic warrants. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a notable enough event to warrant its own article. I have no objection to a merge/redirect - indeed, it's already given ample coverage at Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait before deleting - I am the author of this article and let me start by saying that I agree with you on most of the issues that were raised. This event was a political blunder and, at the moment, I quite agree that it may not be worthy of a page. However, I do feel, as do the articles I cited, that this issue could make or break the 2012 presidential election and over time I believe that this event will play a major role in the election. I understand that due to the nature of the article it may come off as sounding biased in many respects, but let me assure you that in no way was I trying to support Obama nor disgrace Romney. I was merely trying to write an article about a major event that I feel was not adequately represented on Wikipedia. In response to the comment made earlier about the article being sloppy, I could not agree more. My article is simply the platform in which (given the proper time) the article will mature from. I do not know (as none of us do) how major this event will be. If in the grand scheme of things, the event turns out to be unimportant, than I will surely agree with the deletion of this article. However, I feel that this event may have a huge impact on the 2012 elections (as numerous reputable sources have stated) and I am in favor of leaving the article on (for a couple weeks, at least) and seeing how both the article event evolve and mature. I hope that the article will be given a fair chance and that if any issues do arise, we, as the Wikipedia Community, can come to a fair and appropriate resolution. Thank you. Mister Pip(talk) 10:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think anyone is questioning your sincerity or good faith effort. That said, the idea to keep the article just in case it becomes independently notable is a bit sideways. Another choice would be to merge the additional content into the primary article and break out the existing section if the event one day becomes the touchstone moment as you've suggested. Don't be discouraged either way. Your work is appreciated. Cindy  ( talk to me ) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is just one the many campaign gaffes of an election. It should not be regarded as being anything else but that. Harpsichord246 (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mother Jones (magazine). This incident may or may not prove to be pivotal in the campaign; there will be opportunity to write history after the results are in and there is time for reflection... But it is a major incident in the history of Mother Jones, for sure. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to duplicate Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, in effect. I don't think it merits a separate article. Prioryman (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. There is a real liklihood of this becoming an important in Romney's campaign, worthy of a spinout article. But this event could also fade away as just a minor gaffe. Merging allows the article to be recreated and expanded without much effort in the future, were the first scenario to come true.  Them From  Space  05:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep.  This material about the video and its effects is going to go somewhere.  Having a dedicated article may be the best way to provide details that don't need to be included in larger articles.  Main points:  don't confuse "article titles" with "subject importance"--  one of the best ways to deal with trivia is to make a subarticle. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The way to deal with trivia is to incorporate it within another article about a more important topic, not make a subarticle for it. The question we should be asking is, is this gaffe trivial or is it important?  Them From  Space  17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is that adding details into a main article can unbalance it. For example, we've got criticism quotes from prominent Repubs over the comments (Noonan, McMahon, Brown, et al). We've got detail on the fundraiser location and host.   But does such level really merit inclusion in the main campaign article, or would it be better "under the fold", i.e. living one click away on subarticle. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that a WP:BHTT argument? More articles are more difficult to maintain and keep track of, and they make the reader more likely to be exposed to one side of a controversy over others. Please avoid WP:CFORKS. Keφr (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, where it is relevant and already discussed. WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. While Mother Jones may have released the information, it would be an odd place to merge, outside of a brief mention. IMHO, merging to Mother Jones would be akin to merging the political process to Time magazine. Cindy  ( talk to me ) 21:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not need a separate article, and the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article already has more on this matter than this article does.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. No need of a separate article. Cavarrone (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is arguably the most notable event of Romney's presidential campaign thus far, and has has significant impact already. And I know 'otherstuffexists' isn't much of an argument, but it's worth noting we have an article on Obama's 'You didn't build that' comments; I'd say this is simply the equivalent on the other side. Robofish (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting on how many "This is the most important thing thus far" arguments that are made. I thought Seamus or his Taxes or his "I like to fire people"....were the most important things.  No worries though I am sure next week will be an even more important "notable" event regarding the presidential campaign will be dredged up by the left from some time in the past.  Arzel (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, but for what it's worth, I strongly supported deleting Seamus (dog) (now renamed Mitt Romney dog incident) as an utterly trivial story. I think it would be bizarre for us to keep that article while deleting this one, but whatever. (To be fair, you're probably right that Romney's tax returns were a bigger story than either, but we do have an article on that: Mitt Romney's tax returns. And yes, we have one on Barack Obama's birth certificate as well.) Robofish (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that article has much more sourced information, which would be unfeasible to integrate into the main campaign article. Keφr (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough for its own article. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable for its own article, Fancruft.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like somethign that may be a big swing. Worse case MERGE if not Keep. 2607:5300:30:101:0:0:1:561 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The basic question is whether or not to invoke WP:SUMMARY style in this instance.   My gut suggests the answer is yes-- this will be a big enough issue to merit a dedicated subarticle.   But what do I know? --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect, although the subject is notable per WP:GNG, it appears to be a an unnecessary split from the parent article. At the time of its creation 1757 18SEP12 there was already a section which existed that covered the subject in the article Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 as of the edit that existed prior to the this article being created at the time of 1308 18SEP12. Therefore, the verified content can be merged and redirected to the appropriate section in the parent article. If the parent article meets the criteria set forth in WP:TOOLONG, then this subject or a larger subject can be spinned off into a sub-article. But right now an independent article appears to be WP:TOOSOON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to the presidential campaign page. Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.