Deletion of Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat

Comment: A clear case of #NEWS. If this was about a similar incident in, say, India or Nigeria this would be an uncontested delete, so why should we keep this piece of extreme trivia about the United States
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. We do  need an entire article on every little thing that has ever happened to people. Just because Blago mentioned her multiple times on his media spree does not mean there should be an article on Oprah and the seat alone. It could be listed in the charges article that Blago commented on Oprah, but every instance of him talking about it does not need to be covered in detail. This info is also at Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama. We do not need a separate article for this. It might have been "discussed in the media on a daily basis" but Wikipedia is NEWS
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges; '''do not redirect''' as the title is ''highly'' implausible. As the nominator had the wisdom to point out, all we really know for sure is that Blagojevich ''claims'' that he gave serious consideration to appointing Ms. Winfrey. That juicy tidbit was like an overdose of catnip for celebrity-obssessed columnists and bloviators, especially in the Chicago area -- but it's a mighty slender reed for a Wikipedia article. The whole kerfuffle was but a passing blip on the radar screen of history. It should be compressed into a single paragraph in the Blago corruption article, and a sentence at most in Oprah Winfrey or it will run afoul of 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)