Deletion of Carl Freer (3rd nomination)

Comment: I don't believe this to be an attack page. This person does not fall under , because of his legal issues (which are well-sourced) The person meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG)

Comment: Looks like an attack page. He is notable only for two things: Gizmondo and his legal issues. His relationship with Gizmondo is covered extensively in Gizmondo. The only thing that necessitates this article is his criminal past, but the article does not meet .  is also suspect, considering he's only really notable for Gizmondo and, again, that information is covered in Gizmondo. No one else would get a page for being a passenger in a Ferrari crash (per the LA Times) or being involved in criminal activities as a youth. It just doesn't qualify for Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME||WP:GNG)

Comment: Attack page or not, this would not meet . An example would be the article for Fifth Harmony. Despite being mentioned in , the article was redirected multiple times until the band actually released a single https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fifth_Harmony_(2nd_nomination)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fifth_Harmony_(3rd_Nomination). Despite being mentioned (and featured) in multiple reliable sources, the band simply did not meet general notability guidelines and they had a hundred times the references that this guy has. Looks like he wrecked a car and ran a company into the ground. If that were notable, then we need to rewrite notability guidelines to include criteria for "Failed CEOs." Even if all the sources were reliable, they are mainly about the company and I would agree with those above who state that we can easily redirect this into the company article. This is another 15 minutes of fame article that Wikipedia doesn't need
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: While I have not seen any comments from at least one user who is adamant about keeping this attack page going, I am going to assume that he/she will come at the last minute with a delete vote in an attempt to tilt the scales without leaving enough time for an ample counter-response. As a closing thought, I would like to point out that although this is the article’s 3rd nomination, the 1st was a no consensus. The 2nd was a keep which included a vote from a now non-existent user who voted that “I came here to look this guy up.” While this 3rd nomination may seem like I am disrupting Wikipedia, I am simply trying to point out that this article is detrimental to the overall goal of Wikipedia. It does NOT meet . If it did, then anyone who commits a crime and ends up with an article in the L.A. Times should be included in Wikipedia. This person may have been someone back in the day, but they are no longer and there are not enough reliable sources to show what his “claim to fame” (notability) is. It definitely is not  and I still do not see how having your name in the L.A. Times meets general notability guidelines. So, sorry to ramble on, just trying to make a case for why the article needs to be deleted as opposed to being used by those who want to take a dispute about things that happened outside of Wikipedia and try to make a case of it on Wikipedia. After all, outside of the 5 or 6 people who voted on this AfD, I  am not sure there are enough people who know or remember this guy to even count on one hand
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRIME)