Deletion of 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Comment: per . "Routine kinds of news events ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I don't think there's an enduring significance here, those people were going to be replaced anyway, and previous presidents have done so too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRITERIA)

Comment: Satisfies ; made global headlines, was unprecedented in the approach that was taken
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I agree with the removal of the unnecessary word "controversy" from the title, and also with the suggestion to rename Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy as 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys for disambiguation. This does not seem to be a routine action, at least not in the way it was done, so it is notable historically as well as by the extensive media coverage. It raises questions about the independence of U.S. attorneys (as do dismissals by earlier presidents on both sides of politics), which we cannot discuss as  but could cite from secondary sources and academic publications
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: A fairly glaring case of  and . Clearly fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:10YT||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: This has significant media coverage for the surprise of the announcements of the resignations of 46 US Attorneys at once, many were not expected to resign on Friday, and the firing of Preet Bharara is significant in itself as he had been asked to stay on previously and has now been fired, similar to Sally Yates, whose dismissal has its own Wikipedia article. Since Attorney General Janet Reno did something similar in the past, perhaps the article should be moved to "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys" as has been mentioned earlier, however this article does not merit deletion as it passes  from media coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Passes notability, plenty of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Per , this is notable because, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."  This clearly has widespread non-routine coverage and affects federal law enforcement throughout the United States.  There is no requirement that an event be unprecedented (we have articles on every Super Bowl, and every presidential inauguration), although some parts of this do seem to be unprecedented.  It just has to be notable.  At least two aspects in particular are receiving non-routine coverage: 1. Preet Bharara was fired (he did not resign). 2. There are https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/nyregion/preet-bharara-says-he-will-stay-on-as-us-attorney-under-trump.html earlier reports that he was previously asked to stay on.  No strong preference on the title
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: while I understand the motivation for delete, I also think there is merit in documenting the people from the previous administration that a president fires in the first 100 days. Why are we stopping with lawyers though... I think eventually if this article is to pass the |Ten Year Test it should document EVERYONE that was let go from the Obama-to-Trump transition, not just lawyers.   Peace
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:TYT)

Comment: This is a well-sourced article about a notable topic. The bold change of title is welcome. Not all reporting of the event is sensational. Not-unprecedented isn't an argument: the fact it isn't unprecedented is covered in the article and anyway, because of the Jeff Sessions Russia (controversy?)  thing, significant actions of his are more like to attract "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Keep per more than sufficient coverage and . The title may need to be altered, but per the sources, the dismissals are controversial. And that controversy is erifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:V)