Deletion of Jonathan Kern

Comment: looks like a clear case of  to me. The only significant coverage relates to the Lotus theft in 1998; he's not really 'notable' apart from that, and that isn't enough to justify an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As the article is currently written, there is so little coherency it reads like an |attack page and could be deleted on those grounds. At the very least, there needs to be an effort to place the subject's activities into context and provide some narrative. It may still end up being uncomplimentary to the subject, but it won't read like a rap sheet compiled by a drunk committee
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATP)

Comment: Telegraph calls him a "legendary conman" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/high-style-and-base-behaviour-674583.html, he's been featured on BBC TV ''Britain's Great Pretenders'' and Top Gear http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2005/03/stories/06/1.html, plenty of other RS have articles about him http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8d0dAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6942,4517146&dq=jonathan-kern&hl=en New Straits Times, Scotsman, Herald - and tabloids inc. Mirror, Daily mail...there is plenty here to satisfy , I really do not understand this nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails the |general notability guideline as well as |the notability guideline for crooks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PERP)

Comment: Passes  with sources in the Mail, Guardian and Independent, all major UK newspapers. Kudos to Chzz and Off2riorob for their efforts on the article and with the original editor
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)