Deletion of Matthew Linford

Comment: this is a bad Promo article of an Associate Prof. that uses primary sources and fails  and . The patents I found and the contribution to a 1996 Cambridge University paper (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8046658&fileId=S1946427400206349 here) could be promising if there was an expert who could discern if the subject has made some kind of unique discovery or impact but those alone aren't enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ACADEMIC)