Deletion of Mitt Romney's tax returns

Comment: My reason for originally splitting this off from Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012|the original article was to prevent that article from being overwhelmed by  issues, per .http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney%27s_tax_returns&diff=506158046&oldid=505424592 Such a split is entirely permissible per : "''as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage.''" Sure enough, I made a wise decision. We could merge everything back, but I won't stand for deletionists arguing Undue should that occur, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:PRESERVE||WP:CFORK||WP:ENC)

Comment: at some point, we have to come to consensus on what individual incidents or issues are notable enough for entry into the project as a separate article.  I don't think |we are yet at a consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC)

Comment: POV fork. Also hat wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: 38 news articles; whether one believes that any of them have '''significant coverage''' about the specific subject is debatable. Same can be said if someone creates an article on Obama's college transcripts. Although there are over 1 million regular google hits about the subject, not all are |reliable sources, and against it is debatable of those that do fall under RS whether there is enough significant coverage about the subject. There should be an attempt to improve the article |before bringing up the article to AfD, to at least support that the subject passes notability guidelines. I would support a '''merge & redirect''' at this point to an appropriate article (there are multiple notable subjects if a merge were to occur), however if it can be shown that the subject is clearly independently notable in and of itself I can be persuaded to change my opinion to KEEP
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: this clearly passes .  It's been front page news since at least December, 2011. On all the nightly news shows (including Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and multiple stories on the BBC, going back to January with a recent spurt), not to mention the NYTimes, Washington Post, LATimes, Business Week, Forbes, New Yorker.  Several million search results on Google.  If you think it is a POV fork, you need to improve it, adding sourced content, not removing content as was done before
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012.  Per nom. & others, a |POVFORK. Does not warrant a standalone article, but is a notable issue in the Romney 2012 campaign
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)