Deletion of Colm O'Shea

Comment: other than a brief mention of his income, these are mostly blogs and related sites, and a book review. The Forbes profile is all of three sentences, hardly in depth coverage.  The most substantive coverage seems to be an interview in Jack D. Schwager’s book ''Hedge Fund Market Wizards''.  See  Note #3 about interviews
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (:WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: I respectfully disagree with some of the reasoning offered above, on both sides of the debate.  "a page on COMAC Capital LLP before ... its CEO" is a classic negative case of  ... why not go write the article on COMAC Capital?   "Blatant advertising" - the article has so many typos that I think we can be sure that it wasn't written by the guy's PR flack.  "Important British business man"? Come on, the guy is a hedgie who probably manages fewer people than a boy scout patrol leader.  That said, when I googled COMAC, the first thing that came up was a WSJ article "Comac Capital Trims Staff Amid Losses, Redemptions", Juliet Chung, WSJ, Sept. 6, 2013 - that on its own arguably passes WP:SECONDARY for the guy.  There's a bit of a problem with hedge funds and private equity shops which is that, to comply with US securities laws, they limit access to information about the firms, their investments and their strategies (they also do it to add mystique, but that's a debate for another place).  This means that a lot of the reliable information is limited to a handful of source like the FT or WSJ or Aust Fin Review plus trade rags.  Therefore, at some point we may have to consider a general policy for defining "big league" finance industry figures - like /N but for hedge fund managers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE||WP:BASEBALL)