Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lord-Castle

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lord-Castle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing to AFD on behalf of subject. Concern is: Privacy. Notability seems minimal and bio is almost wholly negative. See also ticket:2013070910009401. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The many reliable sources indicate that this person is a chronic con artist. Deletion of his Wikipedia biography may well assist him in carrying out future con games. This is not the sort of "privacy" that we want to protect. Quite the contrary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple sources in line with WP:CITE policies assert notability. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without addressing the substance, I attempted to fix the horrid citation syntax. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would not be sorry to see this article deleted. It appears to be about a serial business failure, some of whose efforts look extrememly dodgy. What has he been doing since 2006? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Peterkingiron, notability is not temporary, and dodgy business failures can be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 21 July 2013 (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.