Deletion of Todd Mason (2nd nomination)

Comment: This article leaves much to be desired but as C.Fred said above, a consensus to keep was established a month ago, and the article has changed little since then (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Mason&action=historysubmit&diff=431883947&oldid=425787572 diff). For my part, I see one |reliable source on the article that covers the subject himself, plus several weaker sources, the sum of which is barely enough to push him over the  bar in my book. To address the nominator's concerns, I see no evidence that this article was written by the subject himself (though the |limited scope of edits by its creator and only contributor of substantive content ''does'' suggest a |conflict of interest). Bringing in "former colleagues" to discredit the claims made in the article would only be |OR on their part in the absence of reliable sources of their own. Furthermore, reliable source coverage is coverage; we don't care why or how that coverage came to be. If the nominator wishes to claim that the sources ''are not'' reliable, that's another issue that should probably be taken up at N first, rather than at a deletion discussion. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO||WP:SPA||WP:COI||WP:OR||WP:RSN)