Deletion of Jonathan Dach

Comment: per . The lead of the article clearly states ''alleged involvement'', so if his involvement in the event is only being alleged, then we don't need an article about a |living individual filled with implications and allegations of wrongdoing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP)

Comment: I nearly recommended speedy deletion here. If this isn't a  violation then I'm not sure why BLP1E even exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Either the article should be deleted, or the prostitution scandal should be reduced to a sentence or two so as not to be  . The vast majority of the section is a  of the scandal, and not directly relevant to Dach's biography or even involvement in the scandal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: I find it hard to imagine a more perfect example of  . I also think the family consultant is stepping on his own feet here. If there was less of a paid editing suggestion this would  be an obvious delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: First of all WWB_Too, I would like to thank you for handling your conflict of interest appropriately.  You are correct in that this discussion revolves around .  Additionally, I think that the first two points are satisfied - Dach is clearly only known for his involvement in the scandal and is otherwise low-profile.  Your third bullet point is what makes me think this is a keep.  Dach's role appears to be both substantial and well-documented.  Therefore, I think this is a '''Weak Keep''' on this basis.  The claims of undue weight are not correct in my opinion, but this is the wrong forum to discuss them.  Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)