Deletion of John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008

Comment: Well sourced. Borock's argument that WP is not news is not policy. WP isn't a source of breaking original reports but is used for memorializing past events. What standard is being used to state that it is not of "lasting importance"? Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia; there are thousands of valid articles that may not fit someone's interpretation of "lasting importance". This was a significant event along with the criticism of ''The Times'' it elicited. This well-balanced article is too large to merge into the campaign article. Declaring it is "not a 'stand alone' sort of article at all" isn't an argument. The controversy in the campaign article has two paragraphs, per Wikipedia's |summary style. Are those recommending merging wanting this section of the campaign article expanded with all of this detail? That isn't what summary style is all about; hence the need for a stand-alone article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: Significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Notability is permament and I see nothing to reassess the decision of the first AFD which decided it was notable - indeed the recent coverage in relation to the lawsuit only further demonstrates the notability of this article. It also shows why it is certainly not just the routine news coverage described under #NEWS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)