Deletion of Steven Troughton-Smith

Comment: Seems to be promotional and . Poorly claimed "public" appearances doesn't mean it is notable. '''THE NEW
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: As with the nominator and other contributors, I have spent a little time reviewing the text and the references linked in the article (and other mentions of the subject elsewhere), and do not see that  is met. Does the subject's name appear in some tech-press articles? Yes. Is it |non-trivial coverage? No - probably not. Take for example, https://web.archive.org/web/20110121053302/https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-01/18/grace-app this Wired UK article from 2011 which is used to support some of the text. It is substantively about an app and its creator - who isn't the subject here. The subject here is mentioned - as the app's developer (coder). This is just one example, but it is one of several that do not substantively contribute to GNG and NBIO. While the subject is, undoubtedly, the primary topic in some other coverage (like https://www.irishtimes.com/business/dublin-student-gets-a-tasty-slice-of-apple-s-pie-1.1237962 this Irish Times piece), I am disquieted by the level of "extrapolation" in the article text that was made of this coverage. (Coverage in two tech-press articles does not support a claim of being a "poster child". Nor does one link to an awards page support a claim of winning "many accolades and awards"). In honesty, it is this level of inappropriate COI, PROMO and AUTOBIO that has pushed me from 'maybe there is a little coverage....' to 'delete for GNG, COI and NOTCV reasons'. In short: Delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBIO||WP:SIGCOV)