Qwyrxian let me attempt to point out the flaws of your response to my arguments set forth above Yes Im a new editor however with all due respect that has no bearing on your inclination to decide on behalf of all viewers what should be made available to them  I very much understand the purpose of Wikipedia  My assertion is NOT that the middlefinger incident should be included in the subject article I started because of news reports as you contend  If you will review the foregoing the reason why I cited the news reports is because a flagrantly reckless comment was inserted that what is of issue now is not worthy of documenting when the exact opposite is true the news reports is best evidence in that regard and the person who said it is not worthy has only but his mouthan inferior source of evidence relatively speaking  It is noteworthy and if you can come to appreciate the context of the subjects profession and for which has become known to be involved in then youll come to appreciate the significance it plays out in the essential need to properly reflect the entirety of the trial in which the subject became a major fixture as cocounsel  Your example of everyday political speeches is seriously an aytypical example by which to convey your point  Contrary to a mudane everyday speech here an attorney just allegedly got out of court in obtaining a siginficant finding in his clients favordefeating immense odds and seemingly going against the court of public opinionand just afterwards gathered with his team at a restaurant just down the street from that historic victory during which he released the manifestation of his emotions etc as one could imagine  This was included as part of a segment of the whole article of the articlethere is no article specifically on this incident so lets also come to appreciate that  And to the contrary that this incident is of interest only at the moment more and more discussions are being held about the audacious incident and has cultivated an interest in what happens next as if it is leading to a whole host of other actions whether that includes the filing of a bar complaint etc and this leads us to the national grand scale interest of the audacity of officers of courts acting in such a manner etc  Furthermore I concede that Wikipedia is not in existence for the greater good and that was never my contentio  Again you misunderstood the context I place in the words public interests Going back to the above it is incontrovertible that is of the interests of the public and consequently it should be documented well because as noted in the latter paragraph it is beginning to take shape in having a lasting impact on what we have come to expect from individuals such as the subject of the article  Let otherscertainly at least those who helped me in creating the articlechime in with their thoughts before you take an action on behalf everyone else  Lets not do something in such a haphazard way  Do not deny information in haste