:The reference I can see for the removed detail are About.com article by Charles Montaldo who seems to be a fairly active net writer on crime, but he doesn't cite his sources so the article would not be sufficient ref for anything contentious. All this is beside the point however. Not surprisingly, Montaldo a licensed private detective, makes no mention I can see of the BLP information I removed. The other ref is a dead link. So not only is that detail intrusive BLP, it is unreferenced.   

 .:::, Firstly  my deletion of what I think is BLP was I think reasonable while the matter is under discussion, because if it does not belong in the article on BLP grounds you can't give the information on the Talk page. (and this is not my interpretation it's policy). Your comments can argue the point without mentioning the detail, if you succeed in getting the detail accepted fine but until then the actual detail does not belong in Talk. And you did not just reverse the limited deletion you took out my entire comment (above, in which I pointed out there are no references for the detail) and reverted the page to before it was made. It's back now. You didn't just  removed my comment without any rejoinder to my points. Moreover you have failed to disputed my assertion that the detail is not in the referenced source,  and you have failed to  provide any new alternative source as reference for the detail, hence that detail which is now in the article has no source  which coulkd be used as a proper reference. 

  To repeat: the references currently for the detail are [17] and [22] which consist of About.com article which makes no mention I can see of the BLP information I removed. The other ref is a dead link. I must insist that you provide a good reference for the detail we certainly can't have BLP without references left in the article, and my understanding of policy is it ought to be immediately removed. The onus is on you to provide a ref for that BLP detail you have put in the article.