Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam
the article because: '''(1)''' You should have made yourself very clear then and not dragged other stuff in to befuddle your point. Every article stands on its own merits and Natalie Khawam deserves her own WP article at this point because she is  with all the  and  coming out by the thousands in the reliable media every day at the present time. '''(2)''' Kindly note, that OTPAPER we have room for this and much more. '''(3)''' In any case, this is clearly not a case of a flash-in-the-pan BLP1E because there is just too much media and verifiable sources being churned out. '''(4)''' This person Natalie Khawam only came to light ''after'' the resignation of David Petraeus on November 9th, 2012, barely '''12 days ago''' (her name came out a few days later, so we maybe know her for 7 days, and on that basis you feel confident enough to delete?), but how can you or anyone make a judgment of her notability in the context of the scandal when the scandal itself has only been public knowledge for about 12 days only and how can anyone rush to delete and exclude the main players in this serious event. '''(5)''' Natalie Khawam had deep enough personal relationships with both Geberals David Petraeus and John R. Allen that they went to bat for her in court. '''(6)''' She has lobbied and been in the White House at least three times. '''(7)''' She has had serious relationships with political fundraisers and politicians such as US Senators John Kerry and Marco Rubio and many others. '''(8)''' She is an attorney and was married to and very involved in the work of her former husband Grayson Wolfe, an important person in the former George W. Bush administration. '''(9)''' Natalie Khawam lives with her sister Jill Kelley and they have hosted and participate in important political events together. '''(10)''' How any one can jump to conclusions and want to zap a growing article about her as she is obviously a key player in the Petraeus scandal as it unfolds is just incredible, unless someone is trying to be an apologist or something for them and wants to stop WP from doing what it does best, grow as an encyclopedia that deals with verifiable and notable facts and personalities, even if we come to know ''publicly'' about them 12 days ago. Thank you
— User:IZAK, 16:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOTPAPER (Wikipedia:Notability)