Deletion of Michael Cole (public relations)

Comment: While there is some in-depth coverage in reliable sources, a strong case can be made for |inherited notability through Mohamed Al-Fayed.  Moreover, since the subject of the article would like it deleted, I find no reason to keep it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Because I am technically not the nominator (just a proxy for the subject who wants the article deleted), I feel justified in providing my own views. I see four arguments for removing this article:''Speedy deletion:'' The short contribution history shows the appearance of a couple other editors expanding the article, but all of those additions have been removed, leaving dominant only the contributions of {{U|Keresaspa}}, who created it. And he has no objections to its deletion (see his comment above), bringing this article into speedy-delete territory on #G7 grounds. If {{U|Keresaspa}} happened to tag the article with {{tl|db-g7}}, its subsequent deletion would be speedy and uncontroversial.''Liability:'' According to Mr Cole's statement reproduced above, the article is rife with errors because the cited independent sources misrepresent facts, and he has no interest in correcting them because he wants the article deleted. Even considering , if the sources didn't get the facts straight, Wikipedia's purpose in disseminating knowledge isn't served by compounding the problem, and exposes the WMF to potential liability if libel issues arise with the cited sources.''Position vs person:'' An influential post at the BBC may be notable, the person who inhabits may not be, particularly if no coverage ''about'' that person in the context of that post can be found. Ford Motor Company has had several presidents, for example, but not all of them are notable enough to merit an article here.''Inherited notability:'' The remaining sources imply that the subject |inherited notability through Mohamed Al-Fayed. Appropriate parts of this article could be merged there, and this article could be converted to a redirect.I admit that second point is weak, but with all four taken together, I am leaning toward deletion. The article would not be missed, and the subject would be grateful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:NOTTRUTH||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: because |much of the coverage of him is |inherited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOTINHERITED)