Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etch-a-sketch gaffe

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#Etch A Sketch. Whether to also merge any additional material is an editorial decision. Sandstein 05:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etch-a-sketch gaffe

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

An article based around a single event during the 2012 primary season. While there are sources discussing the event, it seems to fall under WP:Not#News. As the policy on events at WP:Notability (events) states, singular events are only notable if they have enduring historical significance, or widespread impact, neither of which applies to this case. It also specifically mentions that routine news items such as political news, even if widely reported on at the time, are not notable unless “something further gives them additional enduring significance”, which I don’t see to be the case here. PROD was declined by article creator citing wp:1E. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Etch-A-Sketch. Agree w/ nom., falls under WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence (yet) of "additional enduring significance", though if such significance becomes apparent at some point, the article can always be recreated. For now, it makes more sense to redirect to the article which already has a section on the topic.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for same reasons as above. No reason to redirect since I can't imagine anyone would search for a page on this. (I could even be convinced to delete entirely, but this incident having its own wiki page? Not a chance.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Etch-A-Sketch - a merge seems superfluous, as there's no notable new content. I wouldn't be opposed to delete for the same reason. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No substantial content not already covered in redirect target. JIP | Talk 20:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was nothing more than a minor news story that generated interest for only a brief moment. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets removed from Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 per WP:UNDUE before too long. There will be too many other more important things to discuss in that article by the time the campaign is over. Peacock (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a rare and unusual event; there are few other times in which someone in the know testifies that a candidate has changed their position purely for political gain. The suspicion that political candidates do not vote their conscience on political issues is widespread enough for "flip-flopping" to be a common criticism, especially in the US, and there considered enough of a smear to dirty rivals just by its mention, but proof is not nearly as common. Anarchangel (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt - In the Apropos of Nothing Dept.: According to Esquite, the novelty is supposed to be called a Magic Romney-Sketch.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect seems to be the consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 26 April 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.