Deletion of Frederick Achom (2nd nomination)

Comment: Noting that the notability is very marginal indeed, and that per  and the fact that the person desires deletion, ties go in favour of deletion.  Being listed as one of the 100 most powerful businessmen of African or Caribbean origin in the UK Powerlist is not, IMO, a "notable award" at all.   Nor is being in the list of '''1000 most powerful Londoners'''  a "notable award."   That list includes Bip Ling, Simon Hammerstein, Matt Hermer, Nick Jones, Piers Adam, Nick House, Charlie Gilkes, Duncan Stirling and a host of other "luminaries".  It is not a "notable award" by any stretch of the imagination.     A majority, as far as I can tell, of the "news sources" are actually simple "press releases" and, as such, far down the totem pole of Wikipedia.   SPS press releases do not establish notability.   Lists of thousands of non-notable people are ''not'' "notable awards" at all.  And the "repeated coverage" is non-existent. For example the http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/hot-spot-the-scotch/?_r=1  New York Times cite has ZERO mention of Achom.  Yet is one of the "reliable sources" averred to exist. It is about "The Scotch" and not about Achom, does not mention Achom, does not imply that Achom is notable, and is a clear case of adding purely tangential "sources" to a BLP devoid of actual sources. http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/freddie-achom-joins-the-board-of-vivid-technologies-as-nonexecutive-chairman-428277.php is a press release. http://www.virginmediabusiness.co.uk/VOOM/news/AppyParking-scoops-1m-investment-/ is a press release. In fact, almost every source for his business is - a press release, or barely rewritten press release. Delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: With regards to notability, I do not think this is at all a question. I've seen AfDs voted and closed 'keep' with just the occasional trivial mention in 2-3 respectable sources (something I dispute as being 'significant'). With regards to the subject's desire to be deleted, I'm not sure of the official stance of the organisation, however my personal view is if it is accurate and neutral with every single contentious issue backed up by reliable and trustworthy sources as per , it should remain. This is really nothing more than a compendium of public domain information. I do not necessarily believe in the right of someone to influence what information the project presents based on personal preference, even if it is about them. I only support this when the info is not accurate or not sourced
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Passes . The subject of the article runs their own site that portrays them in a very positive light, ignoring anything remotely negative. If they really did want to disappear from public and business life, then agreeing to their request to remove the article from Wikipedia would have more substance. Our readers might reasonably expect Wikipedia to have a page about them, so we should keep our more nuanced NPOV biography
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)