The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The merge proposal has been considered several times without consensus SilkTork *YES! 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mini-controversy with no lasting importance Borock (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Controversy refers to events which happened before the presidential campaign, and were widely reprinted during. Page already avoided deletion in previous discussion early last year. Interesting that new deletion discussion comes up just as Iseman lawsuit and Times response have been added. With all these things in mind, I would argue much stronger deletion argument must be made in order to draw consensus than one similar argument made in last year's AfD. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The defamation lawsuit just filed shows that the article (which is about press actions as much as it's about McCain actions) has lasting importance. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into McCain Presidential Campaign article. It is not a "stand alone" sort of article at all. Collect (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into presidential campaign article Sceptre(talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into campaign article per above. Usrnme h8er (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Every little political "controversy" doesn't need its own article. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into campaign article. Kellyhi! 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant enough to remain as a separate article, well-defined topic, and well-sourced.--ragesoss (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the lobbyist controversy itself has not had a lasting impact in regards to John McCain's political career, the appearance of the defamation lawsuit has established that the incident of its reporting has a lasting notability. --Bobblehead(rants) 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD and Wikipedia:Consensus#Forum shopping and the admittedly more aesthetic than practical reason that should it become merged, facts about the case will continue to reemerge on the main article, deleted with the summary, "This belongs in a sub-article". I have never seen an argument disdaining the veracity of a report in favor of the issue remaining on WP so that it can be debunked. Seems obvious to me. While the page remains, it can be debunked or verified. While it does not exist, the facts are not available. Anarchangel (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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. ∴ Thereforecogito·sum 05:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into campaign article. Appears to be a fairly trivial mini controversy that should be covered, but doesn't warrant a standalone article. Dman727 (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability guidelines state that a subject, as long as it was once notable, always remains notable, it does not fall out of notability. travb (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Notability is permament and I see nothing to reassess the decision of the first AFD which decided it was notable - indeed the recent coverage in relation to the lawsuit only further demonstrates the notability of this article. It also shows why it is certainly not just the routine news coverage described under WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand where the nominator is coming from here, as in hindsight this seems like a manufactured controversy which did not seem to have any merit to it, and was not picked up on by other media sources. However, that's what makes it notable: the 'controversy' in this case is not so much over John McCain, as over the decision by the New York Times to publish the article. This is still an ongoing story, as shown by the recent action by Vicki Iseman to sue the NYT for $27 million (!), and the sources provide plenty of evidence of notability. (On the other hand, I would support merging Vicki Iseman into this article - I don't think she's notable in her own right. But that's a different discussion entirely.) Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given this article was created by excising this exact material from the Vicki Iseman page and that both articles have weathered deletion processes, the intention of merging that page into this one would require significant new argument, seeming to go around consensus as measured at those times. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only question is whether M/s Iseman has become a public person or not, not whether her notability is dependent, per se, on the original topic of the controversy. (To cite one of a million examples: We reads the article about Colonel Chas. A. Lindberg and, our coming across the blue-lettered name contained therein of Lucky Lindy's plane, namely, "The Spirit of St. Louis," if we thinks we wants to know more about this here plane, we clicks on those blue letters....) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources and is a current ongoing story due to high-profile notable libel case. 87.194.210.172 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename article Given that it's ostensibly about the NYT's questionable practices, it should be renamed to more fully reflect this. Jtrainor (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial (and widely referenced in the media) NYT article was about McCain's long history of questionable practice of close relationships to several lobbyists, but somehow the media attention about the entire article was steered to the singular issue of the relationship between McCain and one of the many lobbyists mentioned, apparently on the basis of anonymously sourced innuendo which formed the lead in the article (a questionable practice itself). If McCain hadn't established a lengthy trail of questionable practices with several lobbyists, the NYT article could never have been written, IMHO. If the Times had decided to publish the same article without leading references to Iseman, no lawsuit would have resulted (and fewer readers would have likely noticed the article at all). BusterD (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lawsuit related to the controversy was recently filed against the New York Times. SteveSims (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent arguments for retention presented above. John254 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.