Deletion of 2009 White House gatecrash incident

Comment: 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 . Special:Contributions/67.187.92.105|67.187.92.105
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to White House intruders. On its own, it falls into . But in a broader view of intruders at the White House, the subject fits in perfectly
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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 , and I'd support a '''Merge''' (by which I basically mean 'redirect') into White House intruders
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: It's notable in the sense of , and the person's biographies should rather be merged in the article about the event per , 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 OTNEWS 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

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

Comment: Insipid tabloid idiocy, to put it mildly.  The epitome of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per |Not News. Totally agree with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: notable incident covered in multiple reliable sources. This article's topic is clearly not excluded by , which, in relevant part, says that "routine 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per the above. No notable aftermath, so |NOTNEWS otherwise
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to White House intruders. I'm trying to apply the principles in the proposal . For ''depth of coverage'', the news coverage has gone beyond merely reporting the facts of the event as we're seeing analysis of their motiveshttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/politics/29party.html and suggestions that they may face criminal charges.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/28/gatecrasher-michaele-salahi-met-obama For ''duration of coverage'', it's held up 5 days after the event! It's likely to hold up better than the 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama fly swatting incident|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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Easily passes , , and can certainly be edited to pass POV.  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Multiple users have invoked  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:WIALPI)

Comment: 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  of the proposed  guideline, and I think we need to start stressing this point heavily in AfDs and on article talk pages&mdash;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&mdash;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  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&mdash;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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BREAKING||WP:EVENT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per Postdlf, Cenarium, Mandsford. All the possible merge targets would deeply reduce the coverage of an incident well reported by RS.  does not apply, this is not routine coverage but an event with international resonance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)