Deletion of Benjamin P. Hardy

Comment: Stubs, whether they "need more work" or not, are not automatically entitled to stick around; there actually has to be a credible notability claim in the first place, as well as at least some ''evidence'' that the depth and breadth of |reliable source coverage needed to support it at least ''exists'' even if it isn't all in the article yet. But this meets neither of those requirements: the notability claim boils down to "he exists", with no evidence shown of anything that would make his existence more notable than the norm among people who do what he does, and the referencing is mainly to  |primary sources that cannot assist in showing notability — while the fewer sources that ''do'' assist in showing notability (''Forbes'') are not being used to support any actual ''substance'', but are simply piled up as a |reference bomb metasourcing the mundane statement that ''Forbes'' has written about him. But that's not how referencing shows notability either — the reference has to support a statement about the ''context'' that the coverage was given ''for'', not just a statement that the reference ''exists''. There's also a direct |conflict of interest here, as the article is a clear  by the subject himself — but even if he ''can'' be shown as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, the path to getting one does ''not'' pass through writing it ''himself''. At best this is a |blow it up and start over situation; at worst it's  for a person who ''may'' clear our notability standards in the future once his book is published but does not yet pass them today
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:REFBOMB||WP:COI||WP:AUTOBIO||WP:TNT||WP:TOOSOON)