Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008
Well sourced. Borock's argument that WP is not news is not policy. WP isn't a source of breaking original reports but is used for memorializing past events. What standard is being used to state that it is not of "lasting importance"? Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia; there are thousands of valid articles that may not fit someone's interpretation of "lasting importance". This was a significant event along with the criticism of ''The Times'' it elicited. This well-balanced article is too large to merge into the campaign article. Declaring it is "not a 'stand alone' sort of article at all" isn't an argument. The controversy in the campaign article has two paragraphs, per Wikipedia's |summary style. Are those recommending merging wanting this section of the campaign article expanded with all of this detail? That isn't what summary style is all about; hence the need for a stand-alone article
— User:Therefore, 05:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SUMMARY (Wikipedia:Summary style)