Deletion of Obama Eats Dogs

Comment: 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 ''' (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-as-a-boy-ate-dog-meat/ 1, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/really_ruff_race_NVzVnof94hCmF0ptJpXorI 2, http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/dogfight-over-obama-dog-meat-eating-childhood-joined-191512800.html 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: this unimportant article being used to score political points per , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:CONTROVERSY||WP:EVENTS)

Comment: And consider a wide-ranging topic ban on many of the people involved herein for violating 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per #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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Fails even the most remedial reading of . Other than reporting on them as such; The lies, general distortions of reality, lies, pandering, character assassinations, lies and Red herring|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 . {{mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:FART)

Comment: per Alan Liefting and red pen of doom - this was a meme for two news cycles, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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 #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: passes , is about one of the most notable persons in modern times, and is on par with the quality and notability of most articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Trivia, #NEWS, election-year POV-mongering
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per Carrite, Tarc. Fails #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)