" 

 ==Story Notable and Newsworthy, So Run It 

 This story has been in the news for several days now  in addition to the earlier exposure last year  and as of today it is being commented on by many ""reliable source"" newspapers, which are also reporting that the Los Angeles Times, which had previously spiked the story, is now running it   itself a notable event. 

 So why is Wikipedia burying the story? It is notable. It is being reported by many news sources. Is this a deliberate cover-up ... or is it a sincere attempt to safeguard the legitimacy of Wikipedia by ignoring the story due to a misunderstanding of why The National Enquirer is generally considered ""not a reliable source."" 

 If the latter, let me clarify for those who are knee-jerk reacting to the ""bad"" reputation of the National Enquierer: The National Enquierer's reliability problem rests upon their use of anonymous sources  but anonymous sources are nowhere to be found in this particular story, for the simple reason that the National Enquierer's own reporters and a hotel security guard (who has gone on record) are the witnesses to the event, and they are fully named in the story and in subsequent stories. Furthermore, there is now news of the reporters filing an ""incident report"" with the police, due to the way security was handled during their attempts to interview Mr. Edwards, which moves things to a new level of notability. 

 Note this headline from FOXNews: ""Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter...""  and interanlly to that article, please find this: ""Beverly Hills Police Sgt. Michael Publicker, meanwhile, confirmed Friday that an incident report was filed with the department by two of the tabloid's reporters."" So the story has moved beyond the boundaries of ""tabloid only"" reportage, and is now embedded in stories published by other, more reiable, media outets, and an account of the incident is also on file with the Beverly Hills Police Department.   

 So run it already 

    

 So run the story already."