Deletion of Rupert Dover (2nd nomination)

Comment: The BLP concerns can be resolved without moving the article to draftspace. The BLP concerns raised by Black Kite, SportingFlyer, SmokeyJoe, Ohconfucious, and myself can be resolved by completely removing the Rupert Dover#Property controversy section.Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content says: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence|burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Any editor who wants to add information about the property controversy would need to either substantially trim it to comply with BLP and  or gain consensus on the talk page for restoring the material without significant change. I have not removed the section myself as that would be a controversial action
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: I think notability is reasonable. Content may be edited in response to the  and  principle, or by translating the content beyond the more recent Property controversy, or quoting more sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP)

Comment: WP:BLP1E/ seem to be the most applicable things here. I don't see how violating planning laws makes someone article-worthy. The rest of his bio is the type of stuff that could be scraped off the web for most people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)