Your statement that she has “refused to talk about the matter all together” is patently false. In response to a T.V. show host’s question “How are you responding to the rumors about you and Eddie Cibrian,” Leann replied “You know what, everything is so not black and white.” And on another show (Regis and Kelly), the same response: “Everything people read is not… it’s not as easy as black and white.” Also noteworthy is her statement on her blog that “This is a difficult time for me and my loved ones” –again with a complete absence of any denial of the affair. No one has seriously argued that it was not her or Eddie in the video, and I submit that any attempt to do so would simply call into question either the arguer’s intelligence (cf. Moon landing hoax), or else his or her neutrality. But really none of this matters, because – as I said – I completely agree with you that this is currently not Wikipedia material. This is not to say, of course, that it won’t become Wikipedia material. I’m not going to lecture you on what might cause this to become Wikipedia material, because – assuming that you’re as experienced an editor as you say you are – you will already know. Suffice it to say, however, that there are myriad entries of affairs on Wikipedia profiles, and even a cursory look at any of them sheds light on some common features of all. I am sorry if I offended you by calling into question your neutrality. As Wikipedians, we should all strive toward verifiability and away from bias. In keeping with these tenants, I can guarantee you that if this affair rises to the level of verifiability and importance, both in terms of mainstream media attention and cultural impact, that warrants inclusion, I will not be alone in fulfilling my duty as a responsible Wikipedian to support inclusion of said affair. Best, J.M.