Deletion of BRitic

Comment: I was curious as to whether it was even real (or a hoax) when debating (read edit warring!) over the capitalisation of the name. Now that someone else seems to think the same, it suggests maybe it isn't notable. Furthermore, the sample text section seems rather |original research to me. Perhaps adding a few paragraphs to English spelling reform would be more appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Fails |general notability guideline that requires ''significant coverage'' and prefers ''multiple sources''.  Mentions by a single source, even if that source is |reliable, are rarely enough to establish a presumption of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: Weak notability and other concerns such as likely  and  according to the edit history, tone of edits, and evasive/non-committal replies by the primary contributor so far. After much search and cross-checkings done by other editors earlier, I don't think the contributor or anyone else could provide any latest and more reliable third-party citations other than those mentioned above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:COI)

Comment: because (1) the journal cited is likely to be peer reviewed and therefore #Scholarship|is of high value, and (2) the fact that ''|the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources'' leads me to believe that the citations given are sufficient fo fulfill notability, even though they are (weakly) related. Ultimately, this is a very borderline case that depends on whether academic journals are such high-value sources that one or two of them can negate the need for other high-quality sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)