::As far as speedy deletion criterion A7 is concerned, you are quite right, and it was careless of me not to remove that from the deletion log. I have corrected this error, and the latest deletion log entry does not mention that criterion. As for G11, "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", how exclusive is "exclusive"? Certainly there are individual sentences which, taken out of context, might not seem to be promotional, but I cannot see a single paragraph which, taken as a whole, does not read as promotional in tone to me. However, the article, at least in its final version, was not such blatant spam as many that get created, so I will ask another administrator to give a second opinion. The administrator I have in mind can, I am convinced, be trusted to give a genuine independent assessment, and if he disagrees with my opinion I will accept that. 

 ::One last point. The article did not demonstrate that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nor have I found, on searching, evidence that it does so. If the speedy deletion is overturned then the article will be taken to a articles for deletion discussion. Of course, I cannot know what will be the outcome of that discussion, but on present evidence it looks to me unlikely that the article will survive.