Deletion of Mark Gettleson

Comment: basically a case of  - he has been in the media thanks to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but is not otherwise notable. NB that it isn't a 'puff piece', quite the opposite - if you read the version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Gettleson&oldid=836553800 by the original author it is clear that that person went out of their way to paint everything Gettleson has done in a negative light. Disclaimer: Mark Gettleson is known to me through the Liberal Democrats (UK), though I haven't spoken to him for at least five years and probably not for ten
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: The amount of content in this article is striking and maybe a bit misleading. There seems to be a lot of |dot-connecting that creates tenuous conclusions about the subject's involvement in a wide range of events. Some sources used do not mention Gettleson even once. I'll grant that the articles listed above do come from independent, reliable sources, but that's not quite enough to pass . The way the article's written also makes it seem like Gettleson was the primary actor in the Cambridge Analytica/Vote Leave scandal. Gettleson was a background player at best or at least not the center of the scandal (he doesn't even warrant conclusion in the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal|scandal's own Wikipedia article or in the Cambridge Analytica or Vote Leave pages). I do think this article qualifies as both  (because, in many areas, its goal seems to be building a case against the subject, using information from a broader, actually notable topic and occasionally using sources in which the subject isn't even mentioned) and  (because the 2015 Lib Dem scandal—a non-event for which Gettleson was exonerated—was relatively minor and would never be enough to establish notability on its own
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:GNG||WP:COATHOOK||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: It's a rambling mess of an article. I think there's a nugget of why he might be notable in there with the whole Cambridge Analytica thing, but a BEFORE search doesn't show enough reliable sources for me to assume a keep off of that, and as noted above he's such a minor player he doesn't get mentioned in other sources. A keep vote would require massive amounts  to narrowly focus why he's notable. Also fails , for what it's worth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:NPOL)

Comment: Fails  and . The article is held up by many references, very few of which are reliable and none of which talk about the subject in depth for anything he could be notable for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)