Deletion of Graham McCann (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . While I do think the subject of the article meets  I don't believe he is an especially prominent figure where the project really needs an article on the subject. I can see where this could go either way, but given the subject's strongly expressed desire not to be covered here I am inclined to respect his wishes. Most of the more concrete issues cited in the nominating statement are however, fixable, and not grounds for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Absolute slam-dunk keep. Well-referenced, notability is clearly established and easily passes . To the IP, if you are indeed the subject of the article, I'm sorry you are upset that the article exists here, however as stated earlier, we don't know if you are who you say you are, because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If you truly are the subject, have you sent a correspondence to  regarding this and your concerns with the article? Also, I checked and I have never seen a comment at /N, which is an avenue to try, have you looked into reaching out there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OTRS||WP:BLP)

Comment: Passes  and .  We have only this 's word as to who he says he is.  Ipse dixit applies.  Moreover, so what if he is who he says he is?  No Liberum veto for the subjects of articles here.  Article has plenty of sources.  Subject is "encyclopedic" enough to warrant an article. he is a "public figure" who has voluntarily positioned himself as such.  All this brouhaha reminds me of Streisand effect|Barbara Streisand's house
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR||WP:IP)