Deletion of Naturoid

Comment: WP:N, #OR, . I don't think that the Nature article alone is evidential of the subject's notability. Google Scholar and Google Books results, which are mainly written by M. Negrotti himself, show no signs of ''nontrivial coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject''. As discussed above, some parts of the article are misleading and unverifiable. The article has the appearance of being well-sourced, but from what I can tell, practically none of the independent sources discuss the subject in any detail. A number of pruned Google Web searches like http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22Naturoid%22+-wiki+-wikipedia+-amazon+-%22as+defined+by+the+Theory+of+Naturoids%22&start=100 return about 150-200 unique results with no apparent signs of significant coverage by  sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not a dictionary. It is also not a place to promote a neologism you have made up. Socks or  meatpuppets flocking to an AFD lend an air of desperation and an implication of a lack of sound reasons for keeping an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per ikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: Looks like an essay or school term paper that someone shoved onto WP. Does a lot of work fluffing up the term, but doing some searches shows that it's probably regurgitation of the book and author which produced the term instead of having sources which actually '''discuss''' the term. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Plenty of scholarly sources for the subject.  Three citations by other people is enough to establish |notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)