Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations
with Matt Lauer, and keep a lid on excessive detail, bloated prose, and/or laundry lists of reactions that violate , and . Not everything written needs to be incorporated into a tertiary source encyclopedia, which Wikipedia claims to be. The plethora of articles in daily news sources (largely repetitive, derivative, and churnalism) do not necessarily mean the subject needs greater coverage in relation to Lauer's career as a whole. Writing in depth about the current event is simply ecentism. If this article remains separate, one could argue an article is due for any controversy involving Lauer.  Note that |verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. For comparison, see how Lauer's firing is proportionally covered in tertiary sources like https://www.biography.com/people/matt-lauer-9542543 Biography.com and https://www.britannica.com/biography/Matt-Lauer Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Per policy (), tertiary sources can be useful for evaluating due weight, as they help distill the most significant elements from the inherent myopia of day-to-day reporting
— User:Animalparty, 22:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:UNDUE||WP:PROPORTION||WP:R||WP:ONUS||WP:TERTIARY (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)