Deletion of FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office

Comment: per Natureium. This has happened, but on its own it does not have sufficient significance to warrant its own article. Inserting the appropriate content in the article is what is usually done with such material. I don't think there is grounds for a redirect since it would be too obscure, i.e. falls per #DELETE reason no. 8 Special:Contributions/198.84.253.202|198.84.253.202
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: We not only have a huge amount of coverage, but there's a growing body of commentary explaining why this raid is incredibly important.  It's rare on WP for us not only to have RS but to have RS explicitly stating that the subject is notable.  Just for instance, see http://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/10/why-the-fbi-raid-on-michael-cohens-offic Volokh Conspiracy and https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/09/the-search-of-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-office-what-we-can-infer-immediately/ Popehat.  Sure, these are blogs, but as  says, "''Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.''"  These are reliable sources telling us that this raid is hugely important.  Thus it certainly meets the GNG. Special:Contributions/192.160.216.52|192.160.216.52
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BLOGS)

Comment: This is a small event within a few notable events; for that reason, I cannot pinpoint a single merge target. |Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it was rather foolish to create such an article before any actual |impact (the thing that makes recent events notable, historically) or at least more context. Sadly, however, as long as |recentism bias exists, time will be wasted on discussions like this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LASTING||WP:RECENTISM)