Deletion of Paul Tipton

Comment: Passes . I've kept the information on his cricket, which is notable as he has played matches at List A level in the English domestic one-day cup (the highest level of one-day cricket in England), and removed the rest which was self-promotion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: passes  played matches at List A level, and  with his expert status in dentistry
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: There is a pretty strong argument that Tipton would be notable for his work within dentistry, irrespective of his former life as a cricketer. Brought together, he clearly meets the requirements of  in my opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is a ''terrible'' article and is everything a  shouldn't be: no inline citations, full of puffery, CV-like, making no attempt to present a balanced view of the subject. There are some external links but all these are primary sources except the cricket statistics one (which is hidden behind a paywall). If ever there was a case of , I think this is it. The subject might, possibly, be notable (though my searches for independent coverage just found a sea of self-promotion). However this article in its present form is irredeemable and should go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:TNT)

Comment: I don't know anything about cricket so I don't know if he's "played at the highest international or domestic level" as required by . However, there's nothing that shows he meets any other notability standard. The Denistry.co.uk articles certainly don't meet the GNG. In one his name appears on a list and the other (on the training certification) has all the appearance of being a submitted promotional puff piece. Phrases like "in addition to the valuable skills" and the article being almost entirely quotes from Tipton employees and Tipton himself do not make this look like there's serious editorial review and independent overview
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)

Comment: Passes . The state of the article is irrelevant as |AFD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: this is a promotional CV, and the reliable secondary sources that would demonstrate notability aren't there. Technically meeting the very low bar of  is immaterial, what's necessary is meeting , and that's where this puff piece fails
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: even after a complete overhaul of the article, I'm seeing nothing but incidental mentions plus the usual statistics from cricketarchive. There is nothing from wider media sources &ndash; so fails to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)