Deletion of Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Comment: This entire AfD is a puerile violation of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I'd never heard of this event before, but one look at the article shows it easily passes Wikipedia's requirements of |reliable sources and |notability. Just because the facts of the case are ''disputed'' does not mean the case is not ''notable'' - whether the reports were a hoax or not, the story about them has become sufficiently well-known to deserve an article on Wikipedia. It looks like almost everyone else here agrees, and if no one makes a decent argument for deletion within the next few hours I think this AfD should be |closed early as an obvious Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE||WP:SNOW)

Comment: Certainly meets  and the sources cited do meet . I don't think this AfD proposal was well founded. |Edit warring should be handled using  procedures, not AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:RS||WP:EW||WP:DR)

Comment: Easily meets . Some editors' protests not withstanding, there are reliable sources. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: the otability guideline is that there should be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  That is met in spades.  A few 'POV' or 'Disputed' tags needed I guess
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)