Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs

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 Delete - Looking at only the content and scope of the article in question, there is clear consensus below to delete based on the following:

Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER - most specifically clause 4 which states Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are.
Wikipedia:DUE#Undue_weight - especially with regards to the political responses section which takes up almost a good half of the article's prose.
Wikipedia:EFFECT#Lasting_effects - Namely the first section: An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Eats Dogs

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

Per the article's creator "This article was created as a spinoff of Seamus (dog) as the result of a discussion at Talk:Seamus (dog)#"Obama Eats Dog"." Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 06:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hmmm, that didn't take long, I created this stub maybe a couple of hours ago. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for deletion - are you proposing the material be merged into Seamus (dog)? I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that as it is all part of the same political fight. Kelly ^hi! 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the fate of this article warrants some community discussion, but don't have a particular proposal. Perhaps delete per WP:NOT#NEWS or merge to Dreams from My Father. The Seamus article doesn't seem related to me. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 08:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them both to Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election? Not the worst idea I have had all day. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that's a brilliant idea - merge to Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. Kelly ^hi! 13:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a big part of the problem. Kelly sees this as fight to continue on wikipedia. I would also note that there are obvious signs of offwiki-canvassing at Talk:Obama_Eats_Dogs -- 4 threads with the same header and intro text, with the 3rd one even including "(your reason here)" -- and all 4 before this AfD was even started. 98.92.186.109 (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it does look like canvassing but I'm not responsible. And no, this isn't a fight from my perspective, I was referring to the battle between the campaigns. I've been involved with sensitive politics articles for years on Wikipedia and know how to write neutrally - I authored John Edwards extramarital affair and Ashley Alexandra Dupre. If notable material from both sides isn't included in a neutral fashion you get endless edit-warring. Kelly ^hi! 06:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)When you click on the link to contest the speedy deletion of an article, it generates a new section on the talk page from a template. That is why they all have the same heading and the similar text. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still fishy. All 4 posts there are 1-2 min of each other. From the Daily Caller website there is a twitter feed which lists the wiki article and this AfD. Twitter search for "Obama Eats Dogs wikipedia" brings up a new (protected) twitter account. 98.92.186.109 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It matters little unless they comment here, and if they do they can be largely ignored. It is probably a little retribution to the canvassing that occured with the santorum issue. Arzel (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's should be kept because it's a internet meme that gone viral.108.219.87.31 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)— 108.219.87.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's should be kept let freedom of speech be kept Bessex (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Kelly's suggestion on the Seamus (dog) talk page that both these issues can be included in a Mitt Romney dog controversy article. There's no reason to seperate them when the Obama dog-eating thing was only brought up in response to Romney's dog-on-the-roof thing. (What is wrong with politics?) And the Seamus article isn't about the dog, because the dog isn't notable. It's about the car roof incident and the subsequent controversy, so the article title should reflect that, and then the dog-eating would have a more legitimate case for inclusion. So I guess my !vote is Merge. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DoctorKubla. --John (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DoctorKubla, though I don't think including Romney (or Obama) exclusively in the title of the new article is fair. Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election was suggested above, apparently facetiously, but why not? At any rate, if the Romney dog story is relevant enough to be encyclopedic, then this story certainly is too, so whatever its fate, it shouldn't just disappear. Garrett Albright (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was only half facetiously suggested :) --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that there is no existing merge target and the proposed topic is also unencyclopedic, no problems whatsoever. Look, if you Romney supporters have a problem with a POV article, fix it there or bring it to AfD. Going tit-for-tat with stupid unencyclopedic articles is not the way that Wikipedia works. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I should really write up WP:FART: Not every fart is notable, not even if it's been blogged about. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Both of these issues are nothing more than political talking points and should be directed as such. Arzel (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per El duderino's. logic. You could never add this material into any of the Barack Obama articles, so it shouldn't be allowed to have its own article. Debbie W. 15:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then I'll AFD the Babylon 5 article. The material in there could not be added to a Barack Obama article eithrer No really, this is a clear Redirectify: "Obama Eats Dogs", that title is so biased, it cannot get any biasedder. It can only stand as (1) a title (i.e. an origin) of a redirect, or (2) as a well-established meme. Which it is not, or not yet (TOO SOON). So (1) is the only choice. The topic doesn't merit an article in its own right, so it would be a redirect to a broader article, say, Animal abuse in political mudfights. 217.251.152.109 (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a marked difference between Babylon 5 and Obama Eats Dogs. The first is not a sub-article of Barack Obama, where the second one is. Debbie W. 12:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Election year stuff and nonsense. Or, if you'd rather, "an attempt to politicize Wikipedia content with a non-encyclopedic topic to advance a POV." Stuff and nonsense sounds so much nicer, though... Carrite (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to be very generous to even assign "stuff" to this. Nonsense pure and through. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally say the same thing, were it not for the article currently at Seamus (dog). In regards to these two articles, I don't think you can have one without the other and still maintain WP:NPOV. Kelly ^hi! 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are making what we call an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The question is whether this topic is encyclopedic or not. We don't balance things politically with equal measures of stupid articles — if you have a problem with the POV nature of another article, fix it there. If you think that article is inherently a POV exercise or is otherwise unencyclopedic, bring that to AfD. And, for the record, I'm not going to vote either for the malleable reactionary corporate raider or the unprincipled centrist warmonger and serial failure. I have no dog in this fight, you might say. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This recieved considerable media attention, which is the justification for many other things. We may say that we should not balance stupid dog articles with other stupid dog articles, but that does not change the fact that it does happen. If you want to take a principled view of this than you could have done so when the original stupid dog article was created, deleted, resubmitted, merged, reviewed again and kept with no concensus. FWIW, who is the centrist warmonger to which you refer? Bush is not up for election in 2012. Arzel (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there was a change of administration? I never noticed, although Romneycare is now (temporarily) national, so that should have been a clue. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Plus, there's a distinct difference in coverage between the two. And one could argue that Seamus is notable in his own right (one could, and many have). The dog that Obama may have eaten is unknown: essential biographical data are missing and we could not possible write anything about it. Or them--maybe it was a mix of dogs, like a good meat loaf. I think the warmonger referred to is O., though I derive that from context and not from reality. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing the worthiness of an article about an unelected candidate's dog, although I do admit looking forward to seeing the encyclopedic merits or lack thereof of that piece mooted here soon. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be kept as own item, folding it into Seamus would tend to violate Wikipedia's always-precarious claims to neutrality12.48.88.1 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. The ridiculousness of the name reflects the ridiculousness of the subject matter, but there's apparently been lots of coverage. There really are problems with our notability criterion. LadyofShalott 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lady, I'm going to write Sadie up. She's the dog of an almost-notable Wikipedian who lives in the house (in a notable neighborhood) formerly owned by a now-dead notable person--surely that's enough. BTW, she's getting old... Drmies (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Carrite - Election year stuff and nonsense. Or, if you'd rather, "an attempt to politicize Wikipedia content with a non-encyclopedic topic to advance a POV." - Youreallycan 19:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unimportant article being used to score political points per WP:NOTNEWS, or as a last resort, merge both this and Seamus (dog) into Mitt Romney dog controversy. Both of these silly articles are closely associated and exist only as proxy fights between Republicans and Democrats, and the same fate should befall both. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Into Dreams from My Father or Keep. It's a topic right out of the book and so I think commentary belongs on the book page. EDIT: Added a "or keep" !vote. It's actually not a bad article and it's decently sourced as long as its clear its about a meme. SÆdon ^talk 20:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a newly created Presidential Dog controversies, 2012. Both are out there, sufficiently quoted, but are equally silly--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Seamus (dog) into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. I would note that it's likely that this proposed article will contain more verifiable information about Seamus than the Obama-dog-eating-thing, but that's what exists. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggestions to merge the main Seamus article will have to be done on the article talk page. This AFD is about the Obama eats dog article and at the most can spark discussion wrt Seamus (Dog). SÆdon ^talk 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already added one notification about this discussion to Talk:Seamus (dog) but I guess I can add another in a separate thread to give it more visibility if you like. Kelly ^hi! 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification or not, the fate of that article can't be decided here when that article already had its own AFD with no consensus to merge. You can start another AFD but it's not gonna be decided here. SÆdon ^talk 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification added here. And yes, it's possible for articles to have more than one AFD discussion, as community consensus can change over time. Kelly ^hi! 21:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the article has been twice moved to Obama Eats Dogs (internet meme) by Youreallycan (talk · contribs). Probably a vio of WP:PRECISION but not worth a separate discussion, as the content looks likely to be merged elsewhere anyhow. Kelly ^hi! 21:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Obama eats dogs" is a BLP violation because it implies that Obama eats dogs, which is an unsourced statement. Our sources say that he, as a child, ate dog once, and nothing more. Adding the "(internet meme)" qualifier makes sure that people know it's the name of a meme, and not a statement regarding anything Obama actually does. SÆdon ^talk 21:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally not a concern in article titles - see, for instance, this discussion about the title of Death panel. But, as I said, the content will probably be merged with Seamus (dog) in some fashion so it's not really important. Kelly ^hi! 22:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kelly, it's quite a concern because it can be reasonably read as a false insinuation against a living person. Death panel would be a better example if the title was Obama's death panel. SÆdon ^talk 09:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started a discussion on moving the Seamus article on the Seamus talkpage here SÆdon ^talk 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why split the discussion into multiple places? Kelly ^hi! 22:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason why content disputes on WP:ANI get moved to WP:DRN: wrong venue. SÆdon ^talk 22:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge I think the best approach is the proposal to merge both this, and the equivalent portions from the Seamus article into an article on the dueling controversies. Merging into the book would pigeon hole the controversy, and its clearly attracted enough attention to avoid deletion. Regardless, this and the Seamus controversy should receive the same treatment so as to avoid political bias. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Seamus (dog) into something like Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. These two topics are often handled together by reliable sources, sometimes under the common name of "Doggy Wars". The merge would allow for the exploration of this overlap without duplication of material and would allow for much more neutral treatment.WTucker (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am changing my vote to delete as it should have been all along. In the real world, this was a reaction to the Seamus (dog) story that was floated to disparage one of the Presidential candidates. A similar pattern occurred on WP. These two, election-year, bashing stories are meant only to disparage. They are not notable, of any lasting value, and are not topics for our encyclopedia. At first, I did not see that delete was an option; now, I see that there are enough editors for this mess to be cleaned up the right way. The NPOV way to deal with this issue is to ignore it in real life and delete it on WP. Also see WP:POVFORK. WTucker (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Canine diet. – OhioStandard (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some very few lines might be appropriate in wherever the article on Seamus lands, but not enough for me to !vote to merge. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think silly season will have truly begun once someone creates Obama Eats Babies [1][2][3][4][5] which we could then merge with this article into Diet of Barack Obama. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 01:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on editorial grounds because of WP:Due weight. Here's an easy test: see if you can get it into one of the Obama articles first, like 2012 presidential race. I highly doubt it. This should have been a speedy delete, since it's nothing more than disgruntled editor's political theatre. I'm amazed that others above have equated the incident of Obama eating dog as a child with Romney's abuse of the family pet. And since User:Kelly is waging this mini-war of attrition on several fronts, I'm going to repeat what I wrote at the Seamus talkpage: Current campaign/media usage of these incidents is secondary, if even that. I agree with User:Gobonobo that Romney's incident has been reported for far longer. And while I've waited to make up my mind since this thread started, I've seen User:Kelly grow increasingly non-collaborative and manipulative. Her quick eagerness to accept the alternate title (which started as a joke) is an indication of where exactly she hoped to go with this article, after she found that could not get rid of it. El duderino ^(abides) 04:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And then what happened? Actually I asked for help in consolidating the discussions. Kelly ^hi! 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you asked for help, but still feel compelled to post a glib response here -- that rhetorical question which you also posted at the Seamus talkpage -- and which is another indication of how you are attempting to game the system. El duderino ^(abides) 04:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do after that? Kelly ^hi! 04:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia, WP:NOT#NEWS, election-year POV-mongering. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And consider a wide-ranging topic ban on many of the people involved herein for violating WP:POINT. Hipocrite (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this article and Seamus (dog) which are the result of embarrassingly childish political posturing. They are not encyclopedic topics. (They are not even newsworthy topics, and the fact that the national media consider them so is proof of our nation's decline.) Ban everyone from Wikipedia who thinks these articles are a good idea. Peacock (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These two memes (Seamus and #ObamaAteADog) belong in the general discussion for the 2012 U.S. presidential election article as parts of the campaign. They certainly do not deserve their own separate or even merged article. --McDoob AU 93 14:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Basically silly political posturing with zero encyclopedic value. There really isn't anything worth merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fleeting meme crafted intentionally to counter the Romney dog junk, which is equally tedious. An encyclopedia should not be a chronicler of ephemeral political nonsense. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This and the Seamus (dog) incident are nothing more than stupid political posturing, and have little, if any, encyclopedic value. That article at least has decent sourcing, but both still handily violate WP:NOT#NEWS. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mention something on the Obama page. Same goes for the Seamus article. Neither warrants inclusion of a Wiki page.
delete wikipedia cannot be sucked into becoming a free voice for Superpac nonsense. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FART. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathan, if I ever run for Jimbo's position, will you be my veep? You sound like a brilliant person. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. It could possibly be mentioned in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, the same way that the Romney dog incident is mentioned in his equivilent page, but even that is kind of pushing it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this steaming pile of partisan poop and include in short form in the Obama campaign article if absolutely necessary. Hey, if I have myself frozen until after the election so I don't have to deal with any more of this ridiculous posturing, would one of you guys mind opening the door and hauling me into the sun afterwards to thaw out? I'd appreciate it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this goes beyond the trivial and transient. If this deliberately manufactured partisan construct were to develop some sort of independent notability, it might be appropriate to carefully merge it into the Obama autobiography article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite, Tarc. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose any merge to a new "Dog propaganda in the 2012 US presidential campaign" or equivalent article. Edison (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I would nominate such a synthy abomination in a heartbeat. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability at all. Completely oppose any creation or merge of a page into Dog Propoganda or Dogs in the US presidential campaign. This isn't even a well known meme. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kelly's negative contributions to Wikipedia far outweigh the positive, primarily by wasting the time of good faith editors. This article is a good example. The meme relies on the assumption that those who repeat it care about animals, but, well... "Sounds pretty cool - aerial wolf hunting might make a good spectator sport." : Kelly, 19:56, 30 August 2008: Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 2#Wikipedia user "Kelly" keeps adding random millitary pictures

Anarchangel (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this about the article, not about editors. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it's appropriate to consider the article creator's political motivation, disingenuousness and other disruptive issues related to a current ANI thread [6]. Kelly could have pursued more collaborative means to get this Obama meme into a 'Romney dog controversy' (a.k.a 'Seamus (dog)') instead of pointily creating a separate article when her obvious intention was to get the incidents on equal footing. Check the talkpage of the Seamus article for more context, please. El duderino ^(abides) 03:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (1) The article has been moved to Obama Eats Dogs meme. (Good!)
(2) The article is about the meme, not Obama's eating habits.
(3) The meme already passes WP:GNG (1, 2, 3), so we should cover it somewhere in Wikipedia.
(4) There is no need to decide which article should cover the meme right now. (In fact, I confidently predict that any decision taken now will be overturned within months.)
Therefore, keep. CWC 09:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forthwith. WP is not a sensationalist tabloid trying to get column inches during an election campaign! Come on people. We are trying to create a respectable encyclopaedia. An article on this sort of trivia consisting manly of quotes has absolutely no place in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails even the most remedial reading of WP:NOTABILITY. Other than reporting on them as such; The lies, general distortions of reality, lies, pandering, character assassinations, lies and herrings in scarlet employed by polititians, political campaigns and partisans in during election cycles really have no place here. Time to put this type of partisan POV pushing on a short leash. Also a most egregious violation of WP:FART. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all memes have a place on Wikipedia and this obscure one should be no exception. It really falls under a POV push-back by the GOP and commentators and that is why it got the attention. If this becomes a defining point (which I doubt) then a reference can be made on the Obama article... after all it is about Obama and if a proven stigma exists then it would be proper under current BLP matters. If it keeps up for another month or two that is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan Liefting and red pen of doom - this was a meme for two news cycles, per WP:NOTNEWS. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete - seems to have been created for less than noble reasons, and even less notable than Seamus (dog), which shouldn't exist either. Robofish (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons that should be self evident, but they seem not to be, so: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:COATRACK, WP:SOAPBOX, and because every time the president farts, we don't need to write an article about it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, is about one of the most notable persons in modern times, and is on par with the quality and notability of most articles.--Otterathome (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Egads, what an awful rationale to ever keep an article. Not everything in a reliable source gets to have an article, first of all; we have other balancing factors such as WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E. Second, not everything a notable person does is in itself notable; we live in a largely tabloid, sensationalist-driven media these days that places unwarranted importance on mundane things in celebrities' lives, the President of the United States in particular. We've had these sorts of idiot articles in the past ("Barack Obama fly swatting incident", "Michelle Obama's arms", and most have been deleted easily. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a poor rationale, but I find that most articles that should obviously be deleted are not due to such arguments and !votes.--Otterathome (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a high-profile internet meme which has been covered by mainstream sources. The connection to Seamus is increasingly irrelevant and violates WP:ASTONISH. Users are not expected to be redirected to that article and will see it as another tortured attempt to satisfy Wikipedia politics instead of the readers' interest. —Designate (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any "delete" !votes prior to April 29 should be disregarded as overtaken by events: President Obama addressed and joked about the meme at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, as did the host, Jimmy Kimmel. Plainly meets notability guidelines, and the only reason to delete it at this point is abuse of Wikipedia to propound a particular point of view. THF (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying he said , there is a meme about me and eating dogs and joked about the meme, or was he simply joking about eating dog? Was it specific to this meme? Have you got a link to your claim? [http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/the-diary/obama-delivers-the-laughs-20120429-1xt47.html This external (brisbane times) is the issue you are pointing towards and Obhama makes a dog eating joke and there is no mention of this meme at all - I am still for delete of this meme - I don't see any increased notability of this specific meme - Youreallycan 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because Obama has recently made a joke about it doesn't make it newsworthy. I could see this being distilled to a couple of sentences in one of the 2012 election pages, maybe, but that is all it warrants. Who is going to think this is article-worthy in six months? Heck, two months? Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just watched the President's address at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and had no idea what his jokes about dogs were referring to. A quick search broughtme to this article which explained the meme that generated his jokes. Bhawthorne (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but wait and see if it becomes a very important controversy or fades completely as a passing fad (however unlikely) per wp:CRYSTALBALL. I.e., OK, it's admittedly it's a meme--e.g., see this, &c./&c./&c.--but, what question remains is whether it is as passing of a one as that caused by then-Sen. Clinton's camp's allegedly passing along the pic of Obama in a turban to the media last go-round in aught eight or becomes such a factor WP cannot not provide the meme coverage per notability guidelines.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I can imagine an editorial decision to merge with the Seamus controversy that would be logical. The fact is that certain commentators have enjoyed great mirth at the fact that Obama had to eat dog as a child, and this should be preserved for history.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope the article mentions the soy sauce. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be censorship any other way!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of dozens of non-notable political jokes this cycle. The fact that it has been mentioned in the media for a news cycle does not make this notable enough for a full article. No evidence that this is a notable meme or whatnot rather than yet another attack point between the candidates. I apologize for using OtherStuff, but Rick Perry's forgetting of the third department was way more reported-on and joked about, and it actually deflated the campaign, but it rightfully has no article. Reywas92^Talk 00:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the best way to evaluate the notability of controversial articles is via rigorous analysis using Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's policy on the notability of events gives 5 factors in evaluating an event -- (1) lasting effect, (2) geographic scope, (3) depth of coverage, (4) duration of coverage, and (5) diversity of sources. So lets look at the Obama Eats Dogs meme

(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." Fail The revelation that Barack Obama once ate dog has not resulted in any proposed legislation, nor the founding of new organizations, nor the founding of new TV shows, nor any evidence that it had any real effect on Obama's favorability.

(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." Fail There is a good deal of US media coverage of this topic. However, I see minimal international reporting of Obama Eats Dogs, and I don't see that the story actually has an impact on anything.

(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)." Fail I don't see any books or major news magazines covering this story, and the articles that do exist contain little historic or cultural analysis.

(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." Uncertain News coverage of Obama Eats Dogs was the greatest when it was first published on April 17th, and being mentioned at the White House Correspondents Dinner has caused a smaller spike. I believe that media coverage of issue will disappear within the next month, but there is no way to know if something new will occur causing an upsurge of coverage.

(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 As stated earlier, there is little international coverage of this story, but there were numerous US media organization that mentioned that Obama ate dogmeat as a child.

Overall Different people may come to different conclusions using the Wikipedia notability of events guidelines. However, I think that Obama Eats Dogs does not meet most of the criteria for notability, and should be deleted. Debbie W. 02:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google news archive search shows one place using this term. Searching for "Obama ate a dog" has only one result also, showing funny photoshop pictures. [7] Is this an actual internet meme? Unlike the other article which has massive amounts of coverage, this one doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Does it come up in interviews and news shows a lot? Dream Focus 03:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not actually notable, per Debbie W. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is so stupid. Internet memes are always sensationalized and rarely have anything but a fleeting effect on the public. Let us never speak of this again. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 14:43, 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.