Deletion of Rick Ross (consultant)

Comment: There are plenty of reliable, published sources for this individual. See, for instance, http://books.google.com/books?as_q=deprogrammer&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Rick+Ross this Google Books search which shows several pages of hits for Ross's deprogramming activities alone. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=deprogrammer&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=Rick+Ross Here is a similar search on Google Scholar. Not all these books or articles are suitable sources for a |BLP, but many of them are. There should be no problem with making this article compliant with , , and . Semi-protection, and even full protection, could be used if problematic information kept being inserted. And I don't consider "opt-out" to be a viable rule on Wikipedia - especially not for people who are clearly significant public figures. It's not our job to help people stage-manage their Internet profiles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: While there are some questionable sources, as the other editors have pointed out, there are also many |reliable ones for this article to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: The article passes  and  and Mr. Ross is clearly notable in his niche field.  If there is incorrect information in the article, Mr. Ross should point it out and any responsible editor will be happy to remove it.  But to remove the entire article doesn't seem logical
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS)

Comment: With due respect to users PelleSmith and Brewcrewer, I'm not sure that the overall quality of Wikipedia has anything to do with this debate. The case should be considered on its merits in isolation - and there seems to be a reasonable argument for retaining the article. Isn't the 'quality of Wikipedia' argument effectively a form of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: The article's subject has voluntarily made himself a subject of longstanding commentary on important public issues, and as such is fairly clearly |notable, and will inevitably be the subject of strong opinions.  His career involving the matters he is known for has lasted several decades: he is not a person who became famous as a result of a single incident.  He is not entitled to removal of his Wikipedia article by request simply because it repeats statements made by his critics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)