Deletion of Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination)

Comment: There is no question that the subject passes Wikipedia's notability requirements and we do not delete articles just because they are, for whatever reason, difficult to deal with. In the universe of PITA articles this one in not very bad although Mr Ross needs to understand and accept Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and their neutral application. In particular he needs to remember that |reliable sources drive all content decisions and while some personal insights are helpful in applying editorial discretion we must, ultimately, stick to the sources that are available rather than self published material or self reported opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is the '''second nomination''' for AfD of this article, which should be noted in the nomination and the title of the nomination (the nomination should move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination)), and the side header to the article should list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant), which passed overwhelmingly 26 Keep to 3 Delete. |Notability is not temporary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: and that nomination looks decidedly Y
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: whether the person is annoying in wiki environment or not has nothing to do with the person's notability, which is clear to all extents and purposes of , and is ***certainly*** not limited to the Jason Scott case. I'd prefer editors with the "notability limited to Jason Scott case" bias would steer clear of the article, or start looking up reliable sources. And no, the subject's bias has no influence on the article's content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This seems a personality conflict, and there is absolutely no place for that.  The references supplied are impeccable, and numerous. The subject is notable within his field, and generally. CBS, New York Times, books, newspapers, legal journals... Forty-five refs supplied, both primary and secondary. Deleting the article because there is a  is not the solution. On the other hand, the subject of this article needs to restrict himself to the article talk page, not edit his own article, and quit irritating the VOLUNTEERS who put their time and effort into maintaining the encyclopedia.  If there is something wrong, yes, we want to hear about it. That's not a license to disrupt the project
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)