Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 White House gatecrash incident

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 keep. Deletion is not an issue, after reading this debate. Could be renamed/merged/reworked or else but this can be disussed at the talkpage. Tone 23:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 White House gatecrash incident

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

This AFD is being ~~closed~~ (was closed but reopened by administrator Sarek of Vulcan) by the nominator as "Withdrawn". Someone said that I should only nominate something if I want it deleted. I am more interested in discussion, so the talk page might have been a better place to discuss. Sorry. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) This is can be covered in the Presidency of Barack Obama article. It should not be deleted if later the incident blows up into a terrorist plot, payroll checks issued by Osama bin Laden to the Salahis, shortwave radios in the Salahis basement purchased from the same lot as Osama bought, etc. Other information can be mentioned in the Salahis biographical article since it seems that they are becoming more famous than other Wikipedia biographies (such as Zoey Zane and Tim McLean) (What we really need is a comprehensive conference about what we want in Wikipedia. But, for the time being, this event is much less important than many other Presidential events covered in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, many of which do not have separate articles). [reply]

~~Also, sorry for my bad English. Others may translate below, if needed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep and expand: There have been more details that have surfaced about this incident, and a criminal investigation is underway. Sources:
- Horowitz, Jason; Roberts, Roxanne; Shear, Michael D. (November 28, 2009). "Secret Service apologizes for ticketless couple's access". The Washington Post.
- Vanden Brook, Tom (November 27, 2009). "State dinner crashers could face criminal charges". USA Today.
- "White House crashers named in 16 civil suits". CNN. November 26, 2009.

Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3rd source seems to support an article on the Salahis, not this article. But it is a conflicting set of rules in Wikipedia so I am not a diehard, must delete this article, person. I suspect the criminal investigation is just some Secret Service men who are afraid of getting fired and want to shift the blame to the Salahis. What there really needs to be is a comprehensive discussion about the M. Salahi, T. Salahi, 2009 gatecrash, and Presidency of Barack Obama articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Certainly, the community will come up with a less awkward title, and perhaps it can be part of another article, but making it a section of Presidency of Barack Obama is not the right approach. I appreciate that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. The usual outcome of these is that there will be a flood of "Keep" votes and a similar number of "Delete" votes, and well-thought out arguments and soul-searching and an exchange between two or more people filled with snide comments and calls for civility. After which we still won't know whether a tree falling in the forest makes a noise if nobody is around to hear it, and it will close as no consensus. Mandsford (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Not every security lapse regarding a head of state needs permanent coverage in encyclopedias. In brief: NOTHING HAPPENED except two celebutants wormed their way into a receiving line in a supposedly secure facility. Edison (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per User:Mandsford. Gage (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:NOTNEWS is there to prevent us from becoming a tabloid, not to prevent us from covering items in the news that are encyclopedic, and this event is certainly one for the metaphorical books. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable in the sense of WP:N, and the person's biographies should rather be merged in the article about the event per WP:BLP1E, which is the growing consensus at the two AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaele Salahi. I appreciate that WP:NOTNEWS can be a mitigating factor for Wikipedia-notability, but in this case the news coverage in neither 'routine' nor ephemeral. We evidently cannot evaluate the historical significance (as imprecise as it can be) at present - as for any recent event, which is why it's not explicitly requested for notability - but there are hints for a relative significance - as it questions the White House/US president security and efficiency of the secret services. Cenarium (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be co-listed with the two perpetrators? How can we have a constructive discussion on its coverage if we rigidly stick to the convention of listing separately? People will simply repeat their generic arguments three times, resulting in three sets of heated arguments, three no consensuses, three highly overlapping articles, the possible permanent loss of good contributors unhappy with wikipedia's approach to recentism, and a total of around 300KB of fruitless discussion. Instead we should consolidate the discussion, and attempt to reach consensus on how we should cover the incident as a whole. WFCforLife (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If not, merge some of the content to The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. and Presidency of Barack Obama. I made this same vote for the proposed AFDs at Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi. What a mess this one is going to be... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is an unnecessary article. The The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. article already covers it in depth. We cannot have articles duplicating each other. Tovojolo (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why should The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. cover this completely unrelated subject? The show is completely unaffiliated. Gage (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask that question on the Talk Page of The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. article. There is no need for this article when that article exists. Tovojolo (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information doesn't belong in the article in the first place. Merging this article, or deleting it entirely in favor of covering the event in the The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. article is complete and utter nonsense. Gage (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles currently exist covering the Salahis, who are noteworthy for a variety of reasons. This article should go away in favor of those articles. // Internet Esquire (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See White_House_intruders if you doubt this sort of thing has lasting notability. It will be a footnote, to be sure, but there's no reason why Wikipedia can't cover historical footnotes as long as there's sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Regarding the bios, it's better to have an article about the event due to WP:BLP1E. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can revisit once the notability of the consequences have become clear.Cmholm (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders. I'm trying to apply the principles in the proposal WP:EVENT. For depth of coverage, the news coverage has gone beyond merely reporting the facts of the event as we're seeing analysis of their motives[1] and suggestions that they may face criminal charges.[2] For duration of coverage, it's held up 5 days after the event! It's likely to hold up better than the 'Barack Obama fly swatting incident', as it was an event with more real world consequences, but we can't predict what the media will do with it. Geographical scope: there's global coverage. Diversity of sources: tons, very diverse. Lasting effects: hard to say but probably nil, changes to protocols or laws on the basis of this event are unlikely. Routine coverage: not really the case. The reporting has touches of 'And Finally' to it, but the coverage goes well beyond that. I'd say this event is highly unlikely to have historical notability, and that the duration of coverage and lasting effect will probably be minimal, but we'd have been better able to judge this in a week or two. I'd suggest trimming all the biographical material, which is of little relevance to the event, and merging to White House intruders. Fences&Windows 16:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders per Fences. Changing my vote from keep to what I think is a more sensible compromise. Mandsford (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial and long-lasting coverage satisfies notability requirements. --Pink Bull 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable incident covered in multiple reliable sources. This article's topic is clearly not excluded by WP:NOTNEWS, which, in relevant part, says that "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." As for merging this, I believe it's better to let it develop as a separate topic while the story is developing and then reevaluate whether it should stand alone after the dust has settled, rather than to squash it into White House intruders now. The obvious effect of such a merger would be to make the current contents of the intruders article (just a short list) a mere hat note to the inevitably expanding content about this incident, which is being commented on extensively in the media. It should also be taken into account that there are currently AFDs on the individual Salahi articles, in which many contributors are requesting that those bios be merged to an article on the incident or using the incident article as justification for why the bios are unnecessary. We shouldn't predicate the deletion of two articles on the maintenance of another one, only to delete that one as well. The three articles should have been discussed in one AFD. Perhaps all three AFDs should be closed procedurally for a new, group consideration? postdlf (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provisionally while the other AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaele Salahi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi) take place, as it's quite likely they could end with results of 'Merge into this article'. In the longer term, this looks to me like a case of WP:NOTNEWS, and I'd support a Merge (by which I basically mean 'redirect') into White House intruders. Robofish (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this event has exposed the insecurity around the White House, contrary to popular belief, and has already contributed to reactions by the Secret Service. As a matter of fact, the couple who crashed the event could be prosecuted (see [3] and [4]) --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, merge to White House intruders. The perspective of time will eventually result in this, no doubt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a high profile incident that is the subject of several in-depth investigations by some major media organizations. Appears to be a major event within the Secret Service.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders. On its own, it falls into WP:NOTNEWS. But in a broader view of intruders at the White House, the subject fits in perfectly. Warrah (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand: per 67.187.92.105 and Scooteristi--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mege to White House intruders per Fences and windows. 71.105.242.242 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Postdlf, Cenarium, Mandsford. All the possible merge targets would deeply reduce the coverage of an incident well reported by RS. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, this is not routine coverage but an event with international resonance. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard NOTNEWS issue. No objection to mergers per Good Olfactory and others. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Salahis into this article. The event is notable. Aside from this incident, they are not, per WP:BLP1E. WFCforLife (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable incident covered in multiple reliable sources. We can provide readers a high-quality encyclopedia article on this topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Multiple users have invoked WP:NOTNEWS without a clear explanation as to why they think that applies. It obviously does not provide for the deletion of all topics just because they are recent and covered in the news. Rather, it singles out trivial items that are the subject of "routine coverage" in the news, which clearly does not apply here. Beyond that, NOTNEWS just broadly states that a subject's coverage in the news does not automatically merit coverage in Wikipedia. It does not state that subjects covered in the news cannot be covered in Wikipedia, nor does it provide criteria for evaluating when news stories are notable. So I'm failing to see how NOTNEWS is a valid and relevant argument here, at least without elaboration. Anyone care to explain? postdlf (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important event of US Presidential Administration. Change the title, tho... it's a bit awkward. 5minutes (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge the articles for Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi into this one. This has been an important event of US President Obama's Administration, and will likely have an impact on the Secret Service, but separate articles violate WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely sufficient reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:N. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders. --Tocino 20:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons mentioned by the last two to say "Keep". If you don't keep it, the information should go somewhere.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge This is not a major event of the administration, it is a simple crashing of the party. At the least Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi should be merged here. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the White House intruders article, as argued previously. And under no circumstances should either of these two horribly vulgar people have their own Wiki article. Seduisant (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't an argument, just because they are jackasses does not mean that they shouldn't have a wiki article. Plus this article isn't even about them, it is about their intrusion and the Secret Service's failure.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now at least. I don't think creation of the article was necessarily advisable, but the AfD was even less so (this to me is a key idea found in the subsection WP:BREAKING of the proposed WP:EVENT guideline, and I think we need to start stressing this point heavily in AfDs and on article talk pages—i.e. wait awhile before creating a newsy article but don't then rush to AfD if one is created). Although it's hard to tell in the rush of events it seems to me that this incident has garnered sufficient coverage to warrant an article—i.e. it's passed the notability bar. A merge to a larger article could also be a good route to go, but in my view White House intruders is simply not an appropriate merge target. If editors want to argue that we should turn this into a redirect to that page that's one thing, but most above are arguing for a merge and right now that probably won't work. The WH intruders article is basically a list, and if we were to merge even a paragraph's worth of content from this incident the target article would develop WP:UNDUE problems (since none of the other incidents are discussed in detail). But if the incidents in White House intruders were fleshed out more a merge would probably be a good idea. Regardless any issues with this article can and should be decided by editing rather than outright deletion, and it's not necessary for us to figure out issues relating to merging and the like here. Additionally I believe the two articles on the Salahi's should be redirected to this article with any useful content merged (again at least for now—if they become more notable in the future we could split content off again). Finally it's unfortunate we are not considering all three articles together, and it might be advisable for one admin to close all three at once and give consideration to all of the arguments on all three of these AfDs as though they came from one central AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't agree more with Bigtimepeace's last point; whoever considers this AFD should also be the one to consider the other two. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 06:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think this is a standalone incident. The incident has a unique identity. It may relate to other subjects or incidents, but only imperfectly. The fashion flair involved is startling. Bus stop (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If this were simply a case where intruders were caught and ejected, it would be a one-incident story not worth a separate article. But in this case, what merits a separate article is that the security system failed. So there is a Secret Service internal review going on, and Congressional concerns, and lots of questions about how it happened - in short, there will certainly be thousands more newspaper articles, covering new material, and the whole matter cannot be summarized in a paragraph or three as part of a large article somewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reductio ad absurdum of the deletionist position. This story has been in the news for days, is the subject of a major Secret Service investigation, and will reportedly be the subject of a Congressional hearing. Deleting it because we don't approve of publicity whoring would be the worst kind of POV editing. Binarybits (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements. Plenty of reliable sources are available. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like an important story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→
Keep - meets requirements of multiple reliable source coverage. Also led Secret Service to briefly investigate their own practices. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Binarybits, as stupid as this whole thing is, it passes through Wikipedia guidelines for notability and several sources, and is not a one event (i.e., Secret Services investigation, Congress is calling for people to testify, email records, saftey practices and protocols.). - Epson291 (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and consider revisiting the policy to try to delete the encyclopedia article about every high profile news item. It makes Wikipedia appear to be run by lunatics in my opinion. About half the time I come to get an encyclopedic account of an extremely notable news item I feel like I run into one of these discussions. Don't you understand it's a very big blemish for your site because the people coming here 1) know what Wikipedia is and 2) are looking for an encyclopedic account of the story in the news. In other words, your readers want this content yet you are trying to delete it? That's actually kind of insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.174.122 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that there are a lot of people who use Wikipedia like it were the Wikinews shouldn't influence our policy. It's still an encyclopedia that we are trying to write.Maziotis (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the event is certainly notable event. Certainly readers want an encyclopedic account of the story. It's being investiagated currently by the secret service. I'm not even going to comment on the huge mainstream media coverage it has received.VR _talk 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia. And this certainly isn't a showbiz blog. This is not even major news outside the USA, compared with more important events which don't have their own articles (because they didn't happen in the USA, presumably). Rapido (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But merge the biographies of the alleged crashers into this article. 71.62.125.23 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep and merging in biographies per WP:BLP1E and possibly low-profile individuals. WP shouldn't be contributing to the individuals' notability; however, crashing the White House is a big security breach that is worth retaining. A rewrite of the crashers' identities may be appropriate as well. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I personally think this event is getting way more attention than it deserves, nine days after it happened Google News still lists 8,500 articles related to it and keeps it in its top three stories. That does make it significant in its own right. Ertdredge (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Not News. Totally agree with Edison. Nothing of real importance happened. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- This should be treated like any other article on a particular current event. The Salahis themselves are of less than zero importance, and the article(s) about them should be deleted. But this incident bespeaks serious lapses in White House security, which (regardless of one's views of the current president) is essential to the security of the United States.Daqu (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's become so huge by now that it really ought to be kept. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable, tons of press coverage. Everyking (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --24.178.236.24 (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of Merging to White House intruders. Maybe in six months it will be the obvious choice. Abductive (reasoning) 05:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 4.248.216.247 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insipid tabloid idiocy, to put it mildly. The epitome of WP:NOTNEWS. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders and Sahali articles, per established practice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. No notable aftermath, so NOTNEWS otherwise. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they didn't attempt to assassinate anybody. It was just another publicity stunt for Reality TV. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:NOTNEWS, with no large aftermath; a single news blip that quickly faded is exactly what NOTNEWS is for. Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Possibly merge with White House intruders Crafty (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to disagree with the NOTNEWS comments. Aside from the coverage that's come out of this, it's also apparently led (or is leading to) congressional hearings (as well as personnel actions being taken by the secret service). While I would agree that the congressional hearings are probably not going to yield anything ground-breaking (and may very well be a waste of time for all involved), it does make it somewhat hard to argue that this is a single news blip. While it may have been an unwise publicity stunt, I'd argue that if an event leads to sustained media coverage and congressional hearings, it's notable. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Tareq and Michaele Salahi, and merge their individual pages (and delete them) into this article as well. Make reference in White house intruders, Presidency of Barack Obama and [[The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C.. The couple is notorious for antics more than just crashing the White House party, and there may be even more antics to come. However, they are notable only as a couple and in the actions taken by the couple, not as individuals. They are kind of like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in this way. (Of course, I don't mean to imply that the Sahalis are communist terrorists, as the Rosenbergs were accused!) Me Three (talk to me) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because has all sorts of political implications and repercussions previous crashings did not have and getting far more coverage. Couple years down road if seen in another perspective, can change. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly highly notable and well-sourced. It's unlikely to disappear from the radar for a long time, if ever. Crum375 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be on the radar for ever? It will be this century's equivalent of A Stupendous Leg of Granite, Discovered Standing by Itself in the Deserts of Egypt? Blimey! -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please merge or delete. Let's try and be a little more adult than 24 hour cable news. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, Protonk, careful! Millions of right-thinking people appear to be under the impression that 24 hour cable news is the best news there is; and if you ask for something a little more adult, you're likely to be served the same thing with more cleavage. (Me, I get my high-impact teevee news from the Onion News Network.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then at least it would be entertaining. :) Protonk (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much as I dislike giving these people publicity and dislike even more that the media goes crazy over things like this, it's clearly a notable and important event. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down, merge bits of, and redirect the article on each half of the pair of gatecrashing nobodies into this article and keep the result; after all, it's on a non-event that made Wonkette. Obviously it's utterly unnotable and trivial, and as such it has loads of "notability" as the term has been redefined by Wikipedia and is just the kind of thing for which this work of reference continues to win the love and respect of millions. -- Hoary (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:V, WP:N, and can certainly be edited to pass WP:NPOV. Story of interest around the world that continues to receive enormous coverage and is now spilling over to widespread discussion of Executive Privilege, Separation of Power, and Presidential and Diplomatic Security. Any scholarly reader would expect a resource such as Wikipedia to include an article on this subject, and this article is useful, interesting and likely to expand. Everything we want here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:34, 5 December 2009 (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.