Deletion of Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial

Comment: I ask any editor who wants to make a recommendation to please review the |general notability guideline, then take a look at what the |reliable sources have to say about this specific topic, and then make your recommendation based on policy rather than personal opinion. Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: It isn't clear what we would merge this into: there is way too much information to actually include it all in 2011 Tucson shootings, and it would likewise swamp Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting.  Also, right now, there's evidence (documented in the article) that beyond being a mere reaction to the shootings, the speech had a discernable political effect that went beyond the shootings themselves. Obama has experienced a polling bounce, and the speech was universally and strongly praised. It will be long-remembered, almost certainly more so than his Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009|2009 State of the Union stand-in, which has its own article. The Tucson speech may actualy be looked back on as a turning point in Obama's presidency, and there's no reason to pre-judge this out of a concern about |recentism. |There is no deadline, after all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: into 2011 Tucson shooting, which adaquately covers the president's role in the event such that sufficient content has already been "merged" and the only thing left to do is redirect. Count me as merge in the consensus. Everything the US president does generates Wikipedia Notable topics. That's why we have What Wikipedia is not. In the context of President Obama, Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial generated routine news reporting of President Obama's actions/event. See . Relative to other articles on Obsama, there is nothing yet to establish enduring notability of the Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial event. Britney Spears generates plenty of reliable source coverage on all sorts of events. Wikipedia should not have an article on each Britney Spears event, either
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Maybe this will be taken as an example of great American rhetoric at some future point, but |unless and until then it's just a set of remarks which are part of the shooting event and not notable in and of themselves
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: If someone tried starting this article in 2011, 3/4ths of the people here wouldn't participate in this discussion. We don't need this per  and what is salvageable here can be merged into the reactions article. Any article where we have to explicitly state why a subject satisfies otability by stating in the lead "It is notable because..." has got a ton of problems, most likely with notability. Should merging prove impossible for some reason, by all means '''delete
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:N)

Comment: To give this an article in its own right would be a gross violation of #MEMORIAL. This is just another presidential speech, yes, hugely televised, but so is #NEWS|every day's news
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)