Deletion of DeflateGate

Comment: A number of editors above are relying on the ''volume of significant coverage'' in the last week to establish the notability of this purported "scandal"; that analysis is ''only partially correct''.  Per ,  and , not only must a subject event receive significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, but news events must also establish their ''enduring notability''; that does not typically happen in the space of a week.  Specifically,  states in relevant part
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I created the original redirects that previously pointed to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Sports, fully expecting this would become an article in the near future after more press coverage had become available. It's clear this is a serious, major news item. The question of it passing  seems clear to me; that guideline notes we consider "the enduring notability of ... events". There's little question this will have enduring notability; witness 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy|Spygate. Witness New Orleans Saints bounty scandal|the bounty scandal. Most importantly, witness the '''>5 million hits''' for "deflategate" in Google News https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=deflategate&oq=deflategate&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.1263.2630.0.2742.11.4.0.7.7.0.64.189.4.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.KaJxQhJC42c&gws_rd=ssl. This story is absolutely huge, not a minor hiccough in the 2014-15 NFL season. It doesn't matter what deflategate becomes or doesn't become in the future at this point. It doesn't mater what the penalties may or may not be. It is huge '''now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: for now. For those who are supporting deletion and have quoted , it works both ways: We currently do not know whether in the future this actually erupts into a real scandal (thus historically significant), or it is merely a false positive. It is only after it is finally resolves that can we have a more in-depth discussion on whether it was historically significant or just . Deleting it now and then finding out later that it was actually significant is not productive. Better to err on keeping it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The coverage is frankly a little over-inflated, and should probably have a pin stuck in it, the google hits have ballooned, stretched and distended from 5 million to 6 million hits since the afd was puffed open, and this thing is still blowing up.  Ballghazi has become one of the most overblown football controversies in a long while, and there is ample coverage to satisfy . Don't let the air out of this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As absurd as I think the whole "controversy" is, this topic is covered on all major sports news outlets and even on mainstream news outlets. Searching for Defaltegate shows hits on NBCSports.com, ABC News, SI, CNN, NY Post, USA Today, Time, CBS Sports. I think this easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: far surpasses the |general notability guideline.  The  issue is irrelevant in this case:  yes it is a current event, a recent event, but it is also a notable event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: as per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)