Deletion of Michael Mastro

Comment: I moved the page after that I ''"replaced the stub template and plastered the article with several "multiple issues" tags"'', yes it was me. I questioned all along whether someone should have a separate article about something that happened to them without actually having a biographical article behind it. So that was the basis of the move. After reading some of the discussion on the talk page I may have been wrong, still doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, so I was getting close to wiping my hands of the situation and reverting the move and letting someone else do whatever they wanted (discussion would be moot if the belligerent pulled out, wouldn't it?). But now the article has been nominated for deletion (by someone else I might add), I agree that the article fails to meet  and should be deleted. If the person was notable for being a ''"real estate developer who was in business for forty years managing apartments and midsize office parks in Seattle"'' then they would be worthy of the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Fails  and also because #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: or '''Rename''' - to something relating to the  rather than the person. There are plenty of WP articles about events, rather than the individuals involved. If people contend that it is the event that is |notable, rather that the person, then there might be a case for an event-related article, provided the |reliable sources are there to back it up. Without ING this too much, please see Conrad Murray and Trial of Conrad Murray as an example. The person doesn't have to be individually notable for the event itself to be notable. But if there's no appetite for an event-related article, this biographical article should be deleted (per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: it, I don't care where.  The article title is irrelevant and easy to change.  Easily meets the , ''our primary guideline'', with ''in-depth'' articles in Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Seattle Times, and many, many others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Unfortuantely neither the article nor the first newspaper cited state the size of the bankruptcy and fraud.  The entirety seems to be about whether jewellery worth $1.4M were or were not available to the creditors.  Thius seems to me a very routine issue, which has been blown up in the press (at the request of the police), because he had become a fugitive.  But for that, it would probably not merited more than a mention in the newspapers.  .  If the article is to remain at its present location, we need a full biography.  If not, it should be moved back or deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Since this person is the central character in the bankruptcy, it makes sense for the article to be named after the person rather than attempting to make it an article about a news event. Either way,  applies just as much, and all statements about living persons need to be sourced. This is a keep for me because there is plenty of information out there to write an article, and certainly to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BIO)

Comment: This person is relatively unknown. certainly not notable. Fails  PS:I'm a nobody too, without article-moving rights
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I take back my former keep reading the above and change it to a delete see #NEWS and it fails to meet  &  --Later Days
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:PERP||WP:BIO)