Deletion of Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident

Comment: there has to be a better policy on incidents like this. Some of them don't deserve to be covered at all. And giving some of them their own article? That's a clear violation of  weight. Not always. But just because there are enough sources that talk about some random political "scandal" to support a separate article, it doesn't mean there should always be a separate article. Such scandals need to require a certain threshold to be covered at all, let alone in a separate article. I might lean towards deleting or merging
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: we are not a rolling news website and until this incident is shown to have a lasting impact it remains merely another political flashpoint that will require huge amounts of maintenance with reference to  etc. Plenty of stuff is reported in numerous quality newspapers but still doesn't make it on to Wikipedia, and I see nothing exceptional about this one. We could easily be swamped by articles containing allegations such as this, and the benefit is minimal. You want to know about it, then GSearch for the news sources rather than look in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I am piling on in anticipation that many more silly NOTNEWS and COATRACK violations will occur in the coming months. Wikipedia is not the right place to right wrongs and explain how a politician might have done something dubious. The correct procedure is to wait three months and then see what |secondary sources have expressed a view regarding long term significance of the event, and then decide whether notability is satisfied
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: per #NEWS, , , and . This article also contributes to |systemic bias by contributing to the trend in which incidents relating to contemporary individual United States|American politicians receive coverage as extensive or more extensive than the entire lives of politicians in other countries
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP||WP:UNDUE||WP:BIAS)

Comment: I haven't seen a convincing reason stated here why this fits in with eletion Policy.  By my reading it does pass . BLP is not a consideration here, it is a very widely published and now widely investigated story about a Presidential candidate (public figure). Given that this discussion lasts the usual 7 days, we will know for sure whether it has continuing news coverage.  It has had expanding news coverage so far.  Romney has made a statement on it, a non-denial denial. We may or may not wish that stories like this are covered and have an effect on the electorate, but it is not us who make that decision - it is the media such as the Washington Post, New York Times, ABC, and even Fox - as well as the electorate itself.  If it gets an international news coverage, it looks like a slam-dunk keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: clearly passes the  and is more than your average political mini-scandal; I live outside of the US and it's been attracting coverage here too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Mitt Romney or Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Whether this incident deserves (very brief) mention in Romney's biography or the campaign article is a matter for the discretion of editors there. However, it is clearly inappropriate and |undue weight to have a stand-alone article dedicated to this incident
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: to another Mitt Romney or Romney '12-related article.  The prep school anti-gay incident was one of the 5-10 biggest news stories of the week of May 7-11, but we're |not news, so it should be consolidated into a paragraph or a Lv. 4 heading and merged to another article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is, at the very best, silly season innuendo, which was even denied by one of those who WaPo "quoted."  It ill-serves Wikipedia, is not encyclopedic, is not "strongly sourced", and has other sources partially or fully debunking it.  It is not notable, per se.  It is an allegation of criminal act per WaPo, and thus falls under  rules thereon.  And the ARS is a wondrous side-issue to boot
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: as a textbook example of . Story can't be verified beyond the "he-said-she-said" and Romney won't actually face any legal charges or anything from this. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I hate to say this, but all policy says this should be deleted and making an exception because we guess it will be of lasting importance violates .  Right now, the incident should only get a brief mention in the Romney article.  If people are still talking about this a few months after the election (something which is quite likely, but which we can't as yet prove), we can make a separate article for it then
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BALL)

Comment: but give the article lots of TLC to ensure it remains within the bounds of policy. Some of the delete comments above come across as knee-jerk reactions: that a topic is also a recent news story is a necessary condition for meeting  but not a sufficient one. The same can be said about objections based on the idea that this is an attack page: it doesn't read that way to me, just an attempt to document a potentially inclusion-worthy topic. If this story completely goes away within a week, month or whatever, there's nothing to stop it being AfD'd again, but for now, the amount of coverage its getting suggests that that stands a good chance of not happening, so let's hold on and see how things develop. I think a rename would be a good idea: I'd like to offer up "alleged bullying of John Lauber" as something that might be more neutral? If this is deleted, then second preference would be for this content to be d but condensed into a section of that name in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Besides the nominator's very valid assessment of the article, this is at variance with our  policy — Wikipedia is not meant to document the latest news stories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per nominator and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Take a look at the top left of every page here, it says "Encyclopaedia" this is not an Encyclopaedic topic, it is a one or two day news cycle story about a person who is running for office,  affirms that this is not a newspaper and this article should be deleted as failing that policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: a number of editors are quoting  in support of deletion. There doesn't actually appear to be anything in  which relates to whether a standalone article should or shouldn't exist. This aspect of policy is actually about ensuring that articles don't give undue prominence to a tangential aspect of a subject or minority view ''in comparison to'' the prominence given to the main aspects / the majority views. Whether a subject is worthy of a whole article is the realm of the , not . This is something for the closing admin to bear in mind
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE||WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE)