Deletion of Michael Blakey

Comment: I believe we should ignore whether certain editors are or are not intimately connected with the article, and concentrate only on its technical merits. If sufficient  references referring directly to the subject, not oblique references in passing can be added to it then it should remain. That would prove notability. If not then it should go, but without prejudice to its re-creation when notability can be established. A major contributor to the article has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMastermusicgenius&diff=506407520&oldid=506362548 expressed resentment over being told (by me) of the apparent conflict of interest. It is important that we do not drive down the route of ad hominen comments. We must stick to the article itself, and deal only with its ability to meet the standards here. The editor raises a point that appears to many people to have some validity - that it has survived several years without being challenged - and that point may be worth an experienced and uninvolved person discussing with the editor as a separate issue form the discussion here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)