Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with political impact of Hurricane Sandy, as this was the consensus on the talk page of that article. Whether that article itself should be deleted or merged is a topic for another discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

=[[Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy]]=

:{{la|Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mitt_Romney_FEMA_and_Hurricane_Sandy_controversy Stats])

:({{Find sources|Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy}})

Somebody's going to take this to AfD and it might as well be me. Haven't we already had enough of these articles? If it can be demonstrated that this is actually a noteworthy topic for an encyclopedia, I might change my mind, but right now, I think this is just another unnecessary election article. AutomaticStrikeout 01:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:*Note: Changed title to Casprings (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

::* Changed titled to Political ramifications of Hurricane Sandy. I think this is a tighter title that is currently WP:N and will have an effect on the election. Casprings (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

:Keep Rather you like it or not, it clearly meets WP:N. Multiple reliable sources are commenting on this.Casprings (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Recentism and POV against a politician running for office, using a 'controversy' about an ongoing disaster. If this was such a big deal it would be all over a cursory search of 'sandy romney' on Google News, but that's not the case. If this is a minor thing then it can be merged into the main hurricane article or its inevitable satellite articles; if it ends up being a HUGE deal then I'm sure no one would object to this being recreated and documented. §FreeRangeFrog 01:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and give Casprings a slap with a WP:TROUT. I am so glad the election is almost over, this kind of crap is really getting old. Just to add, that this had absolutely nothing to do with hurricane Sandy. Romney made the comment months ago, and apparently it was not a controversy then. The only reason it is being put forth is because the election is in a week and it is an attempt to make political points. Arzel (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_Roanoke_Obama_campaign_speech&diff=507387860&oldid=507387550 Look Who's Talking].--В и к и T 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - silly, POV, election-related synth. There are "reliable sources" but not ones giving coverage to this subject - they cover a range of disparate subjects tenuously connected by this article alone. Even if there had been a couple of editorials giving credence to the idea as a standalone subject, it would still probably struggle against accusations of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS. Trout for Halloween dinner methinks. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - but only if we can somehow work the Seamus the dog angle into it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, Casprings, but this article looks like a Synthesis to me. Although, if the story takes off in the press, it is conceivable that I might change my mind.. Cardamon (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's been significant coverage, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. More importantly, it's not clear that this controversy, which does rely on synthesis to a degree, will have any lasting WP:EFFECT. Merge anything verifiable that's not already covered in the campaign and presidential race articles and delete. --Batard0 (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as not independently notable. If Mitt Romney was not a presidential candidate we wouldn't be having this discussion. If there's any notability to this at all it can be merged into an appropriate controversy subsection of the main Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article or other similar page.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as Campaign 2012 fooliganism. Carrite (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow Delete - Mitt Romney and his campaign is going to receive press coverage and whether Wikipedia has a stand-alone political article on a biography part of his life or campaign should be judge on whether the topic is an appropriate spin out article of any of Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Political positions of Mitt Romney, Public image of Mitt Romney, Electoral history of Mitt Romney, or Governorship of Mitt Romney. This topic is not an appropriate spin out article of any relevant Wikipedia article and, as such, does not meet WP:GNG. The election is November 6, 2012 and to prevent gaming the Wikipedia system to keep the topic live until November 6, 2012, snow delete now. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: Interesting idea, and it could decide this close election -- like anything, such as the weather in Akron, Ohio on November 5. I wonder, though if it's too crufty, or as Carrite calls it, "fooliganism". Also, as BatardO notes, while it's certainly all over the news, I'm not sure if it's significant, coverage-wise or for any eventual notability. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Do I sound like an undecided voter? Bearian (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: There continue to be hundards of sources for this today. A google news search of the last 24 hours of Romney and FEMA gives over 10 pages of results. http://www.google.com/news?ncl=dVTX8PiruNQG2ZM72xbbSzu9ZNt_M&q=FEMA+Romney&lr=English&hl=en Casprings (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • So does every single thing that has google hits deserve a stand-alone article? Why not just strip apart the main article and create a stand-alone article for every single paragraph with more than one citation? What is your point of creating flimsy contrived articles? Arzel (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge in Political positions of Mitt Romney. Information is surely notable, but a whole article is overkill when it can be mentioned (along with commentary) in a main article devoted to that. --Cyclopiatalk 20:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is already there. Arzel (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, noted that, but in case some new info gets added/references do not completely overlap... --Cyclopiatalk 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Absolutely absurd. Article created by an Obama supporter looking to demean Romney. Thismightbezach (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Information is covered in Political positions of Mitt Romney. Do not need to keep as redirect it is an unlikely search term. Dough4872 23:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Speedy Delete Allegations that Romney's well-established positions on FEMA and State responsibilities are a "controversy" worthy of an article is pure opinion, cannot be anything other than an attack article. Take the editor-supplied "controversy" out of the title, and it is clear that there is no Article. Creation of this Article may violate General Sanctions.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Why do we seem to see a new article every time a candidate does or does not do or seem to do (or say) something? Per Automatic Strikeout, Carrite, Arzel, etc. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seriously, what the fuck? Every nutty or semi-nutty thing a politician says nowadays is now memorialized in article form? WP:RECENTISM and the traditional "not news" thing. At least common sense is ruling the day here for a change, unlike the "binders of women" discussion. Delete this and ban the creator from political articles til the new year, please. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dough4872.--В и к и T 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Potentially merge about 1 sentence into the article about the current election. This is at most a footnote. Not remotely worthy of an actual article. --Onorem♠Dil 16:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENTISM & WP:SYNTH.--JayJasper (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per everybody, Wikipedia is not an election blog. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep for now maybe merge later based on referances and information based on outcome in election. --216.81.81.84 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article does not specifically violate any Wikipedia policy. JayJasper's claims are wrong - NOTNEWS does not mean Wikipedia has to be out of date, RECENTISM does not apply to this specific story which simply is recent overall, and SYNTH is absurd since the story is based on the news articles. However, there is no obvious reason why we can't Merge per Cyclopia, simply because multiple notable aspects of a topic don't have to be in separate articles if one can cover them all. It may be that the long article on Romney's political positions should be divided into sub-articles, but perhaps by some broader line of cleavage, e.g. taxing priorities and spending priorities, international issues and domestic issues. That said, this topic could continue to mushroom over the next week, or if it turns out to kill Romney's campaign, perhaps years. So this merge should be without prejudice to the later revisiting of the topic if things change. Also, though, I hate the title, as I hate any title with "controversy" in the name. Wnt (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Possibly it would make sense to re-title and refocus to something like Political reactions to Hurricane Sandy. That would allow it to include things like the [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nyregion/bloomberg-endorses-obama-saying-hurricane-sandy-affected-decision.html recent endorsement of Obama] by Mayor Bloomberg of New York. Cardamon (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

: I like that. The political reaction to it is essential and looks to play an important role in the election. Casprings (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

::Yeah, you have now created a huge WP:COAT let there be no doubt now as to the pure politicking of this article. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

::: No it isn't. Is there any doubt that Sandy is a also a political story with WP:N?

*Weak keep, but definitely rename Unlike a one-liner from a debate (cough, cough, binders full of women), the political ramifications of a major event certainly warrants enough lasting coverage for an article, especially considering it occurred less than a week before what's likely to be the closest presidential election in more than a decade. Generally, I'm against these types of articles, but in this case, I am going to make an exception. I do agree, however, that renaming it to something more neutral such as Political ramifications of Hurricane Sandy or something similar would be an order per WP:NPOV. With the new title, however, I think the article should be broadened to include everything that arises from this storm politically...for Obama, Christie, Romney, Bloomberg, whomever. So I guess my !vote is more of a merge to an article that doesn't yet exist than a keep. Go Phightins! 02:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC) see below

  • Comment Casprings decided to rename the article in the middle of the AfD (which I think is a very unwise decision), obviously in order to maintain the article. As such I have removed all of the stuff unrelated to the new article name along with a ton of stuff that is obvious original research and synthesis of material. I would say there is even less of a reason for the new article. Arzel (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • :AN article by this new name would be textbook synthesis, cobbling together disparate events into an attempted theme. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hurricane Sandy. 'Political ramifications of X' is a legitimate topic, but here there's no need for a separate article; it can be added as a new section to the main article. It's arguably not a notable subject in its own right. Robofish (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • HOLD IT, this is a different article! As retitled, Political ramifications of Hurricane Sandy is an article well worth keeping. It covers at least four different topics - the FEMA funding levels that were the topic of the AfD'd article, the effect on the campaign tours (currently only one rally by Romney is mentioned, but both candidates canceled stops and considerably altered their strategies in the final two weeks), the comments by Michael Brown (the former FEMA head who apparently landed on his feet as a radio troll), and the effects on voter turnout - which I haven't added yet, but which are actually quite crucial, as they are probably going to decide the election. I was actually considering starting a new article with a broader focus but didn't get around to it, but this one has been edited to do the job. Please do not apply votes based on the too-narrow focus/proposed merge of the first article to this new one. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

::Even with the rename, I still think it's just a footnote for the election article. --Onorem♠Dil 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

:::Congratulations! Article just made worse Added to the breathless declarations that (mis-stated by editors) clear pre-existing positions are now a "controversy", we now have prose as to what "probably" WILL happen. More problematic than before, ramifications are always added as HISTORY, not as WP:CRYSTAL/prediction. The only swing state affected by Sandy is PA, and what that effect will be is UNKNOWN.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

::::The whole thing is still POV WP:SYNTH. That quote says nothing about FEMA, in fact he specifically avoided (evaded, perhaps) any mention of FEMA in particular. The article provided as a reference for the FEMA cuts claim is an editorial where the author highlights Paul Ryan's budget plans and suggests Romney's silence on FEMA means he would cut the FEMA budget. It's purely speculative and the title even suggests as much. Putting that article, that claim and that quote together is pure WP:SYNTH. Plain and simple. Romney's relief rally was a response, not a ramification, regardless of political intent. The "impact" or ramification would be that it had to be changed from a political rally. But this isn't made clear - just another effort to "balance" the article with other "examples" so the POV FEMA synth has a coatrack to hang on. And before anyone jumps to any conclusions... I'm Australian and I don't really care about your election. But this article (under any title) is rubbish and original authors know it I think. Stalwart111 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

: Note to closing admin: I do not support changing the name and broadening the topic of the article mid-AfD...I support this as the outcome of the AfD. Go Phightins!''' 20:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • keep per the above - the article all those "delete"s applied to no longer exists. Political implications of Sandy is, at least potentially, a perfectly sensible article and clearly notable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per users above. United States Man (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Purely OR synthesized crap; all of a sudden we decide that an editorial is a significant topic for an article? Not our decision. -Fjozk (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - We now have Political impact of Hurricane Sandy, a split from the main article about the hurricane. This article should be deleted as being redundant to that. Dough4872 05:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:* same material as I originally put into this article. Good to see that in that format it will survive.Casprings (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Great! A clear POV fork in order to push the GW angle. Seriously, when will people stop using WP to push political agendas? Arzel (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

::I don't know what you mean by "GW angle". And it is hard for me to believe that those deleting information from the article are not motivated by political agendas. Remember, our purpose here is supposed to be to build an encyclopedia, which is generally done by actually covering all the sources! Wnt (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:::You first. — goethean ॐ 23:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

::Sorry, Wnt, but the original version was total rubbish. Nothing about the content was a matter of "covering all the sources" - it was a patchwork quilt of synthed-together ideas from a range of sources, some of which did not include those ideas at all. Like coverage of Paul Ryan's budget plan being used as a "reference" for the in-article claim Romney is (without question) going to cut the FEMA budget, synthed with a quote which it was claimed backed the assertion about FEMA cuts in which Romney didn't mention FEMA at all! In an effort to come even close to "covering all the sources" (without WP:UNDUE weight) the article in question has now had to be watered down to such an extent that it brings together three small (disparate) ideas which are covered in their own respective articles. We now have Political impact of Hurricane Sandy which is slightly better. At least most of the ridiculous POV synth hasn't popped up in that one. Despite assertions above, the two are not the same. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 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.