Deletion of Sunstone (medieval)

Comment: Is well-sourced and informative; I, also, don't see the phantom OR. There are referenes from multiple peer-reviewed journals; the possible  is alleviated by, as noted, the articles being peer-reviewed. I am also ''very'' disturbed by the addition of words, even parenthetically,  that are ''not'' in a policy to a quote from that policy to alter the policy's wording to support a deletion agenda
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I can't help finding the approach taken toward this new editor unnecessarily |bitey. Unsuitable content does need to be dealt with robustly, but I don't think that applies here. I happened to see a link to it being |added to a disambiguation page I'd once edited and have watchlisted. (Incidentally, I had posted at the editor's talkpage and on the nominators, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wuhwuzdat&oldid=404389166 but our letters got crossed in the e-post.) Very shortly before, the editor created "Sunstone in Iceland", which was the one I saw. I removed the prod, because it didn't seem like a personal essay to me. They |blanked the page, perhaps in despondent response to the deletion notice. That's not uncommon with new editors. They then made the duplicate "Sunstone (medieval)" instead. ...Being new, I expect they hadn't realized they can ''move'' (rename) a page, or |request it be moved since you need a certain amount of edits before you can perform pagemoves. I'm not sure the above comment saying the parts that claim specific accounts are allegorical amount to original research is right. The section '''is''' well-sourced, perhaps therefore it's a matter of style that could be resolved through clearer |in-text attribution
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:BUILD||WP:G7||WP:RM||WP:INTEXT)