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 delete. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bunch[edit]

Creating page for IP. Reason on talk page is:

This article has a number of errors and there are no sources cited for documentation. 64.105.104.28 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — If this actually happened (the external links suggest that this is not a hoax), there shouldn't be much problem establishing notability of this person. Cleanup/lack of cited sources are not valid deletion arguments. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to Presidio mutiny~~ The latter is demonstrably notable (it got an article in Time, among other things), and the article in question is largely about that event, not about the person in question (which begins with his death). He is plainly not independently notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Whether to move or rename is a seperate issue, but it appears to be a notable event involving this person. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Presidio of San Francisco. Redirect to Presidio mutiny. The person clearly fails WP:BLP1E. He was not involved in the said mutiny but an initiation to it. There are some evidences available for occurrence of Presidio 27 mutiny, which it seems was a part Presidio of San Francisco. Considering that there is no article on Presidio 27 and if there is consensus, then I think the said merger should be undertaken. In any case, I don't see the notability for a stand-alone article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a move to Presidio Mutiny would be better. Do you think the event is non-notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable. It was covered in Time magazine, for one thing, and was made into a movie. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, the event is notable. But we don't have an article on it. And at least at the moment I'm not sure if this article can be qualified to be termed as the one about the mutiny. If current information is considered sufficient or expanded further, I'm okay with the move. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well it sounds like we all agree an article on the event would be better, so do we create that article and revise our votes for a merge there or vote keep and wait until the AfD is over to make the move and do the editing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to undertake the task of creating a new article on Presidio mutiny, that would be a good development. The article, however, must stand the test of notability and be well sourced. Michael Bunch can then be redirected to this article. Otherwise, I think it should be deleted in its present state. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed said article; please take a look. ~~I think at this point we can safely redirect.~~ Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The newly created article covers the event very well and this article can be redirected there. Great work Mangoe! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having completed the article on the Presidio mutiny, I find that the article has the wrong name! It is Richard Bunch, not Michael. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In favor of the accurate and well done article on subject of mutiny, thanks Mangoe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a great confusion. For a moment I thought there were two different persons, Michael Bunch and Richard Bunch. As it turns out, according to historical evidences [1], it was in fact Richard Bunch. But the documentary Sir! No Sir! says it was Michael Bunch [2]. Obviously, we rely on historical evidence. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.