Deletion of Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama

Comment: to Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. Everyone here !voting "Keep" needs to read #NEWS|this section of "What Wikipedia is Not" very carefully. This is a great article, with great sourcing and great prose. But it is not an encyclopedic topic. And despite what some people have insisted above, this article '''can''' be condensed down and merged, because it has minimal encyclopedic value. I would say that Sarah Palin's outfit, Hillary Clinton confirmation hearings, and the Obama family dog are just as notable, if not more, as they have all had a significant amount of news coverage and have an impact on today's political climate in the US. Yet I would vote to delete those as well, because the full breadth of their impact on the world could be covered in a few sentences at Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Family of Barack Obama, respectively. Sure, one could come up with paragraphs upon paragraphs discussing the brand choices of Palin's clothes, the exact timeline of objections and votes on Clinton's nomination, and the details of how one of the Obama children is allergic to dogs so they must get a hypoallergenic one but they still want to adopt from a shelter. But these can be cut out and reduced to their full encyclopedic value: a few sentences. This article has no impact on the world |except for the fact that it exists (existed?), which is very much NOT a criterion for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Could you imagine an article Invitation to the Inauguration of Millard Fillmore? That topic would be no less notable than this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:EVERYTHING)

Comment: topic is |Notable and the information is |verifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: but move title to plural, Invitations to the inauguration of Barack Obama) because ikipedia is not paper|Wikipedia is not paper and we can write about all kinds of crazy stuff, including cool historical tidbits (assuming that within several years these will be "historical tidbits").  These have clearly been written about a lot in a wide variety of sources, which is enough to satisfy WP:N for me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: This is what " an indiscriminate collection of information" means. otability is also not temporary; who beyond die-hard fans of paper and/or presidential minutiae are going to care about this in a month's time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: as completely unencyclopedic trivia.  The author seems to be a very experienced editor, and has created a pretty good looking and well sourced article, but he should know better.  The fact that there are sources does not make it notable, as you need to consider the topic's lasting historical significance and impact, which differentiates us from the passing interests of the news media (see also #NEWS or the essay NEWS).  This article does not prove, or really even assert, the significance of the document. I don't see how it is anything more than a souvenir. The sources are tabloids, local news or human interest type stories about the making of the invitation, but that doesn't make it a good topic for an encyclopedia.  What's more, you can see how the article has been "padded" to disguise the lack of real substance.  The ''Recipients'' section for instance is only obliquely related to the invitation itself, and is more appropriately covered in the main article for the Inauguration. The controversy over Rick Warren is a political matter completely unrelated to this piece of paper.  Making note of which celebrities received invitations is just tabloid sensationalism.   Lastly, we should also consider whether celebrity worship of American politicians is appropriate for an international project
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: It is tempting to vote keep, since the article is well-sourced and written; but, unfortunately, the subject fails #NEWS. The media coverage of the invitations has been either incidental (X received invitation) or, one of those human-interest, "soft" news stories - and, considering the context, has been ''relatively'' meager (even Michele Obama's inaugural dress received significantly greater media attention than the invitations). The article talks about the design, paper, printing etc, without making the case that any of these attributes are unique or significant - besides being a ''very minor'' part of an undoubtedly notable event, Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. I doubt anyone will be writing about the invitation one week from now (let alone 50 years down the line), and that is the defining difference between mere news-of-the-day and encyclopedic content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)