The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and Nick Candy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Business people - troublesome article - often attacked - protection refused at WP:RFPP - not notable companies and as such not notable person/brothers - Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The resaon given for protection / deletion by Off2riorob is not accurate: Off2riorob objects to factual and verifiable information being inserted in the article that does not reflect well upon its subject persons, Off2riorob preferring only comment that sets the subject persons in a positive light. Noted that Off2riorob persistently removes this information, yet WikiID300, the contributor that inserts the information, does not edit any other information, which tells the story.

The insertion that Off2riorob objects to is:

Christian Candy, through his vehicle Solomon Capital, expanded his operations in 2010 into the mining sector. Solomon and owns a 65% majority ^[1]of the ordinary shares of Metals Exploration Plc (AIM: MTL)^[2], a gold and molybdenum miner operating in the Philippines. On 23 July, 2010 Solomon made a 13 pence per share bid for Metals Exploration Plc.

During this contentious bid, viewed as not recognising MTL's potential in the view of its CEO at the time of the offer^[3] a written submission was made by certain minority Independent Shareholders, who regarded the Solomon Capital offer as opportunistically low, to The Takeover Panel^[4]. This submission alleged that an illegal “Concert Party” comprising Solomon Capital and others was in existence during the bid period in breach of Rule 9 of the Takeover Code^[5]. The Takeover Panel then blocked Solomon from making further purchases of MTL shares in the market^[6]. In the face of these very serious allegations Solomon effectively abandoned its full takeover bid in 2011, entering into a subscription and shareholders agreement^[7] with, inter alia, Metals Exploration Plc and certain Shareholders. This agreement extraordinarily allowed shareholders who had sold to Solomon Capital at 13p to recover their shares at the same price, and provided for certain additional protections for minority shareholders against actions that might be taken by Solomon. Subsequently, it being satisfied the dispute was settled, no further action was taken by the Takeover Panel^[8].

Today Nick is CEO of Candy & Candy and Christian is owner of the Guernsey-based investment company CPC Group. Christian Candy resigned as a director from Candy & Candy in March 2011 after two years of loss making financial performance: the firm recorded a pre-tax loss of £889,735 to 30 June, 2010, with turnover down from £19m to £8.6m, and having lost £547,325 the previous year^[9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiID300 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very prominent in their field (with which I have no professional connection). Regularly mentioned in the mainstream press in the UK (a search for "Candy brothers" produces hits on articles from five of the UK's ten national dailies in the first two pages alone, most of which are substantial articles entirely devoted to them). Involved in some of the most high profile development projects in one of the world's top three cities. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs work and fixing, but despite my normally deletionist tendencies, I vote to keep, largely because the nominator has failed to provide a cogent, valid reason for the article to be deleted. However, if it is renominated for deletion properly I will be more than willing to reconsider. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep About 40,000 ghits, well referenced section above, and the fact that the nominator requested protection before deletion indicates that this may be a way for the nominator to get rid of a "troublesome" article. Clearly notable individuals. MacMed^talk _stalk 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note added after this closure, an edit conflict but I wanted to add it anyway - Although I appreciate this user above reverting their closure on my request their position in regards to their replacing their keep closure with a keep comment may be a little tainted. 40,000 ghits - so what - google hits are worthless in asserting notability - If supporters want to protect the artcile or even edit it to make it decent in any way that would be appreciated - not a single supporter has edited this awful article at all in an attempt to improve it. keep this defaming crap is the support here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08 am, Today (UTC+1)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.