Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy


 * 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. Given the concerns raised about recentism it may be appropriate to revisit this outcome in a year or two. Note that the article was moved to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys during the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Not everything the Trump administration does is a "controversy" requiring an article. This is not on par with the Bush dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2006. In fact, this is not unprecedented. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is not a controversy, nor is the page written from an unbiased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCPlanner (talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. *sigh* Why must we immediately nominate articles for deletion? This is clearly a notable incident that is receiving significant coverage. Let the article snowball... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we'd be creating articles about all sorts of trivial things and spend most of our time parsing what should be kept and what should be deleted. Really this is WP:TOOSOON to be creating an article. And I have to note that Another Believer is the article creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I should have noted that I created the article. Thanks for doing so. I disagree with your reasoning entirely, though. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge with Presidency of Donald Trump, I believe this is too trivial and has happened multiple times in the past: see, it is not unprecedented; we don't have articles for all of those events (except for the midterm dismissal), it is common for Presidents to dismiss Attorneys once they take office. MB298 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – This looks like a routine procedure every time a new administration comes in, fashionable anti-Trump hyperventilation notwithstanding. — JFG talk 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Passes notability, plenty of WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do not guarantee notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete – This is not a controversy. Former President Clinton directed the late, former Attorney General Janet Reno to do the exact same thing that Trump had Jeff Sessions do. It is simply part of the tradition of passing the control of government from one President to the next.  If it deserves coverage then it should be merged into the article about the Trump Admin or the article about the Justice Department or the article about Presidential transition, etc.  But wherever it is moved or merged it needs to have its name changed to something that is not so blatantly a violation of NPOV.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What specific speedy delete criteria do you believe applies? Neutralitytalk 22:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are a couple more sources that demonstrate that this is not a "controversy": – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am open to different page titles, and the article does mention that Sessions' move is not unprecedented. That doesn't change the fact that the move received plenty of coverage to justify a standalone article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is lots of coverage, I agree with that. But, most of it is of the WP:SENSATIONAL variety. I think we all have our guards up so high because of Trump and all of the things the Trump administration is doing, and the media is part of it, breathlessly reporting everything in sensational ways. Many things (cough*Muslim ban*cough) deserve it, but asking the U.S. attorneys to resign at the beginning of the administration is not that. The last three presidents did the same exact thing, except they were a bit more deliberate about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, some are sensational, and we can include media's reaction in the article, but many of the sources are also just sharing news. The administration's decision impacts many people and jurisdictions, hence the widespread coverage. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a plenty of coverage, but that fact alone does not support notability of the article. The topic is banal and commonplace.  It is worth a mention or two in the Trump article or in the DOJ article, etc. But an article all to itself is not justfied.  Also, the name of the article speaks to the fact that it is not deserving of an article topic. The word "controversy" is not really used in the reliable sources. Why the use of the word "controversy" when the Slate magazine article, not a hotbed of conservative thought, calls the whole thing much to do about nothing.  It seems a bit like the title is a stretch to justify an article where no one exists.  We can't name an article a controvesy when Slate specifically states that it is not a controversy and only the article creator really thinks it is a controversy.  It needs to be either merged or moved or fully deleted, but kept as an article? No.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, I'm open to other article titles. I went with the current title based on the name of the 2006-related article. How about just "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys"? I'd move the page but I'm not sure this should be done during an active AfD discussion...? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ABC/AP report: It is not unusual for U.S. attorneys, who are appointed by presidents, to be asked to resign when a new president takes office, especially when there is a change of party at the White House.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've established that the move is not unprecedented. An event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I created a discussion on the article's talk page re: the word "controversy". --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Presidency of Donald Trump: There is a Trump controversy several times a day and this one happens to occur whenever there is a new administration. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unprecendented press coverage. While the dismissal of attorneys has happened in the past, the amount of controversies does make this particularly notable. Eccekevin (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The forced resignation of Preet Bharara alone is very interesting, since he very effectively prosecuted Wall Street post 2009. Re notability: there are plenty of articles about boats that are only notable because they sank. No clamor there. Tempest in a teapot? time will tell. Twang (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this meets the hurdle, mostly on the Preet Bharara element. It's true that mass dismissals have happened in the past, but as the sources reflect, the specific context and timing of this one make it distinctive. (And, as pointed out above, an event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable). Alternatively &mdash; and this would require a lot more work but would be superior and better for the reader &mdash; I would suggest a merge/redirect into a future article on United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration, which could cover this and a lot more ground (marijuana policy, crime policy, the Sally Yates dismissal, etc.) without overwhelming another article. Neutralitytalk 23:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This has significant media coverage for the surprise of the announcements of the resignations of 46 US Attorneys at once, many were not expected to resign on Friday, and the firing of Preet Bharara is significant in itself as he had been asked to stay on previously and has now been fired, similar to Sally Yates, whose dismissal has its own Wikipedia article. Since Attorney General Janet Reno did something similar in the past, perhaps the article should be moved to "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys" as has been mentioned earlier, however this article does not merit deletion as it passes WP:NOTABILITY from media coverage. Zbase4 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading the arguments presented, I am changing my vote to keep. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Whether this is unprecedented or not is irrelevant. The point is it has received extensive coverage from reliable sources. I think it's too early to nominate this for deletion, since this is still receiving continuous coverage. Let's wait until this ends, see if it will still deserve an article and then maybe merge it to Presidency of Donald Trump or First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. But for now, I'd say keep it. Also, per other comments, I support removing "controversy" from the title. κατάστασ  η  01:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider removing "controversy" from the title. However I think that might be a discussion for the article talk page.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple editors have made this suggestion, and I (article creator) don't object. You can comment on the article's talk page, or if it's not against rules to move an article during an active AfD discussion, that'd be fine. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Recentrism, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Eric Holder has been quoted as saying in regards to firing attorneys in the past,"Elections matter. It is our intention to have the U.S. attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as we can." There is a fake news epidemic in the mainstream media and the "2017 dismissal of attorneys controversy" is a perfect example. Eoswins (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC) — Eoswins (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep for now. Let the article evolve on its own, it looks like a good merge candidate after a few days of article development.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename the now vaguely-named article on the similar Bush firing of attorneys called "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy to "2006 Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" -- and, in agreement with ErieSwiftByrd, choose another word instead of "controversy" for both articles. cat yronwode, not logged in. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is most certainly NOT a controversy (note naming already violates Wikipedia NPOV) and is a routine procedure that was done in the past under a number of previous administrations. Wikipedia has no place for the newpaper sensationalism like articles. (see this as well) -- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 07:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep/Comment I am inclined to keep per the amount of coverage this topic has received, but would also like to say it is probably to soon to tell as this even happened yesterday and it might take a day or two to see what impact this event will have. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep/Comment This event is controversial in large part due to the public blessing that Trump and Sessions gave Preet Bharara during Trump's first days as president elect (as noted by almost every news story). Given the high profile cases that Bharara is investigating and prosecuting, and the fact that Trump's allegations of wire tapping within a jurisdiction Bharara would investigate, elevate this to full controversy, and worthy of its own article. Spawn777 (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. "Routine kinds of news events [...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I don't think there's an enduring significance here, those people were going to be replaced anyway, and previous presidents have done so too. HaEr48 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: There are now 2 merge banners at the top of the article. The discussion at Talk:United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration seems unnecessary and should be closed -- the target page is just a redirect, so if we want attorney dismissal content to live there, we could just move this page. Is there an admin who can assist with the closing of this merge discussion? Also, several people have opposed usage of the word "controversy" -- I am fine with removing this word from the article's title, but can the page be moved while there is an ongoing AfD discussion? I'd move the page myself but I want to follow rules. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking out the note re: 2 merge banner, which have been removed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, although the title may be modified: It is already as a reference in google news...


 * Keep. Obvious WP:GNG pass.  The actual text of NOTNEWS says to treat recent news like any other article.  There is more than enough notability for this.  The only quibble I have with it is that I want a title without "controversy" - for example, by amputating the unneeded word at the end of the title.  It's a notable dismissal of US attorneys even if there were not a single person arguing about it. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, but I agree with Wnt on all counts. So I suggest changing title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Orser67 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:EVENT, this is notable because, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."  This clearly has widespread non-routine coverage and affects federal law enforcement throughout the United States.  There is no requirement that an event be unprecedented (we have articles on every Super Bowl, and every presidential inauguration), although some parts of this do seem to be unprecedented.  It just has to be notable.  At least two aspects in particular are receiving non-routine coverage: 1. Preet Bharara was fired (he did not resign). 2. There are earlier reports that he was previously asked to stay on.  No strong preference on the title. Mattflaschen - Talk 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "presumed". That means it's not a guarantee.
 * Keep - Keep per more than sufficient coverage and WP:LASTING. The title may need to be altered, but per the sources, the dismissals are controversial. And that controversy is WP:Verifiable.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How is WP:LASTING demonstrated? This hasn't led to anything further than the dismissal of the attorneys. There's no indication this will be investigated, because it's the prerogative of the POTUS/DOJ. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It's clear this won't be deleted. I won't withdraw, though. If this isn't merged, I may renominate for deletion in a year or so, when the recentism has faded, because I think that's clouding the judgment of many of these votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a routine event. Every president asks U.S. Attorneys appointed by the previous administrations to resign. Bill Clinton asked 93 U.S. Attorneys to resign. Articles like this dilute the credibility of Wikipedia. To maintain its reputation Wikipedia needs to refrain from publishing subjective material. The only news worthy element of this routine event is Preet Bharara's refusal to resign like the other 44 and the 93 who resigned at Clinton's request. But is grandstanding by someone who is widely known to have political ambitions worthy of a Wikipedia article? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.226.211.67 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)  — 93.226.211.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete Agree with the above comment - every president does this - Clinton, Bush, Obama did it. Because news groups are blowing it out of proportion for political reasons does NOT make it worthy of a Wikipedia article.  Wikipedia should be objective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.40.38 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)  — 165.156.40.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete This is a routine non-event. Janet Reno and Eric Holder both did it. Or move to Preet Bharara page as he drove any ostensible controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfrichardn (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- while I understand the motivation for delete, I also think there is merit in documenting the people from the previous administration that a president fires in the first 100 days. Why are we stopping with lawyers though... I think eventually if this article is to pass the Ten Year Test it should document EVERYONE that was let go from the Obama-to-Trump transition, not just lawyers.  Peace, MPS (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment that's a pretty good idea for a list, imo. I wonder if we could find any comprehensive sources for that. Orser67 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, seconding suggestions to move 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, and move Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. -Apocheir (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This event has inspired controversy, so it is controversial. However, I am not certain if it is sufficiently notable.  (To put it another way, will the average well-informed American remember this in 12 months?)  Usually the USAs are dismissed at the start of a new administration, but not usually in this fashion.  The last 2 presidents did not repeat the mass purge that Janet Reno did at the start of the Clinton administration, but requested resignations as replacements were appointed.  Some of these firings and resignations were under somewhat unusual circumstances.  The situation with the Manhattan USA is somewhat unusual, but by itself that could be on his page rather than requiring its own page.  I think someone may have slightly jumped the gun on posting this article, but that's debatable.  I would not jump to deleting it so quickly, but if the turmoil turns out to be little more than it seems so far, then the information on this page can be added to other pages and the article deleted.  If this controversy turns out to be bigger then the page is warranted.  At the time that it first emerged, nobody thought that Whitewater would take 8 years to resolve.--AlanK (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A fairly glaring case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Clearly fails WP:10YT and WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice – Given numerous comments along these lines, I have boldly shortened the title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, per consensus and WP:NPOVTITLE. No prejudice about the AfD outcome. — JFG talk 21:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! I went ahead and marked two talk page discussions re: the word "controversy" as resolved. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to wikinews, which is what stuff like this is meant for. If no consensus to get rid of this article, at least get rid of the "controversy" title which is not justified unless we are going to add it to every article title for a government action criticized by the opposition. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" had already been removed from the article's title. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * * Oops, I forgot that the AfD title wouldn't update. But if this incident does not clear the bar of being called a controversy, what's the point of a stand-alone article? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that the people who are stating that it is not controversial really mean that it should not be controversial. In fact, it is getting significant press coverage and merits coverage here. However, getting rid of the word "controversy" in the title was a good move.  History will determine what lasting effect, if any, it has.
 * Keep Removing the word "controversy" was helpful and should be done retroactively for the 2006 article and housekeeping done to assure that Wikilinks are preserved. Those earlier removals, in the middle of the second GWB term, seven on Pearl Harbor Day a decade ago, were extremely controversial and memorable, some clearly done with palpable and specific political motivations (i.e., to effect the illegal major suppression of voting rights, for instance, and in possible retaliation for the prosecutions of corrupt Republican officeholders such as the just recently released Rick Renzi), and involved extensive congressional hearings and the arguably perjurious testimony by the sitting U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales and DOJ officials Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling. Cleaning house in a more orderly fashion, but done largely for reasons of political patronage is radically different than simultaneous cashiering a notable number of such officeholders mainly effectuated to cover up actual or intended criminality, or involving intended black-letter DOJ policy violations. The firing of David Iglesias, Carol Lam, Bud Cummins, Todd Graves and Paul Charlton, all Republicans, were particularly notable and sordid, yet most were given months to "clean out their desks." Preet Bharara is not the only USAAG in the midst of important prosecutions, but i.e., so is the USAAG for the Southern District of Mississippi who is handling a wide ranging ongoing political corruption case, apparently with yet undisclosed indictments. Activist (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that about 20 out of 30 editors support keeping the article at this point with no one opposed to dropping the word "controversy" from the title. Activist (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for now The changing of the guard is normal, dismissal with immediate effect is absolutely unprecedented. Even Reno's resignation request order had a grace period (granted, one that not all elected to take). Wholesale removal of half of the US Attorneys is not exactly normal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Satisfies WP:GNG; made global headlines, was unprecedented in the approach that was taken. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk
 * Keep. This is a well-sourced article about a notable topic. The bold change of title is welcome. Not all reporting of the event is sensational. Not-unprecedented isn't an argument: the fact it isn't unprecedented is covered in the article and anyway, because of the Jeff Sessions Russia (controversy?) thing, significant actions of his are more like to attract "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. Right now, this is news coverage. If it later proves to have enduring notability, then we could revisit. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the removal of the unnecessary word "controversy" from the title, and also with the suggestion to rename Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy as 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys for disambiguation. This does not seem to be a routine action, at least not in the way it was done, so it is notable historically as well as by the extensive media coverage. It raises questions about the independence of U.S. attorneys (as do dismissals by earlier presidents on both sides of politics), which we cannot discuss as WP:OR but could cite from secondary sources and academic publications. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was treated in the global news media as a notable and highly noteworthy event. Mothmothmoth (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments/Questions: 1) Can an admin close this discussion already? Clearly, this article should be kept. 2) Many editors have expressed the need to move the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. However, this move impacts other articles, too: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline, Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary, as well as Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy. Does a separate discussion need to take place specifically for these articles (and category), or is an admin willing to move all of these pages together? I'm not sure how this works, but there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to move the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article for disambiguation purposes and consistency. FYI, one editor has questioned if "U.S. attorneys" should be replaced with "United States attorneys" in the articles' titles, so that's another thing to keep in mind. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to consider merging, and definitely not follow that example this time! For Pete's sake! Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a "keep" consensus. I agree with Octoberwoodland below that it looks more like no consensus to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - This Afd should be closed as "no consensus". From the current votes, it's clear the article should be kept for now. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd say this is an overwhelming vote to keep the article, but I'll let a closing admin decide. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be a no consensus, which has the same effect as a keep, but this isn't overwhelming at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I anticipate renominating this for deletion in several months or a year, when the WP:RECENTISM has faded. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be the second unnecessary deletion discussion, but you do you. :p --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh I'm not seeing new news coverage on this topic or any suggestion it has WP:LASTING notability, so again we disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- most of those dismissed are notable individuals. Separately, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy exists and is not at AfD. I would support a move to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys as more factual. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, the 2006 U.S. Attorney firing was unprecedented. A new administration often (see Clinton, Bush, and Obama) cleans house of the USA's appointed by the last president. They don't do it in the middle of the administration because of politics. Also, the fact that many of these USA's are notable does not make their dismissal a notable event of its own, it means their bios can cover the content adequately. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.