Qwyrxian, let me attempt to point out the flaws of your response to my arguments set forth above: Yes, I'm a new editor, however, with all due respect, that has no bearing on your inclination to decide on behalf of all viewers what should be made available to them.

I very much understand the purpose of Wikipedia.  My assertion is NOT that the middle-finger incident should be included in the subject article (I started) because of news reports, as you contend.  If you will review the foregoing, the reason why I cited the news reports is because a flagrantly reckless comment was inserted that what is of issue now is not worthy of documenting when the exact opposite is true; the news reports is best evidence in that regard, and the person who said it is not worthy has only but his mouthan inferior source of 'evidence,' relatively speaking.  It is noteworthy, and, if you can come to appreciate the context of the subject's profession and for which has become known to be involved in, then you'll come to appreciate the significance it plays out in the essential need to properly reflect the entirety of the trial in which the subject became a major fixture as co-counsel.

Your example of everyday political speeches is seriously an aytypical example by which to convey your point:  Contrary to a mudane, everyday speech, here, an attorney just allegedly got out of court in obtaining a siginficant finding in his client's favordefeating immense odds and seemingly going against the court of public opinionand just afterwards gathered with his team at a restaurant just down the street from that historic victory, during which he released the manifestation of his emotions, etc., as one could imagine.  This was included as part of a segment of the whole article of the article-there is no article specifically on this incident, so let's also come to appreciate that.

And, to the contrary that this incident is of interest only at the moment, more and more discussions are being held about the audacious incident, and has cultivated an interest in what happens next, as if it is leading to a whole host of other actions (whether that includes the filing of a bar complaint, etc.), and this leads us to the national grand scale interest of the audacity of officers of courts acting in such a manner, etc.

Furthermore, I concede that Wikipedia is not in existence for the greater good, and that was never my contentio.  Again, you misunderstood the context I place in the words, "public interests." Going back to the above, it is incontrovertible that is of the interests of the public, and, consequently, it should be documented well because, as noted in the latter paragraph, it is beginning to take shape in having a lasting impact on what we have come to expect from individuals, such as the subject of the article.

Let otherscertainly at least those who helped me in creating the articlechime in with their thoughts before you take an action on behalf everyone else.  Let's not do something in such a haphazard way.  Do not deny information in haste.