Deletion of Dean's Law Dictionary

Comment: Firstly the article is written very poorly, with most wikilinks broken or badly formatted, even though most of them intend to link to existing definitions such as united states law; the author just didn't bother to check the referenced pages. The article still reads like a brochure for the product; the author added an availability section in the article and signed it, evidencing poor understanding of article editing and signing procedures. His eagerness to add the dictionary to Law dictionary, not only as an allegedly notable downloadable dictionary, but also as a "major law dictionary" (conspicuously making it the only one listed on two categories) just reeks of  to me. Also, the author's contribution history strongly suggests an agenda for promoting this product. Finally, as per nom, the WP:WAX argument doesn't hold (let's give it the benefit of doubt even though black's has almost 500,000 google hits compared to less than 3000 for dean's); perhaps other law dictionaries should be under scrutiny too, but as of this AfD discussion, dean's dictionary is the one being reviewed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: In order to keep, the article needs  that |verify |notibility. If the subject is notable and sources show this, poor writing and tone issues can be addressed. If sources can't be found by the end of this Afd, delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: While the article is clearly a  in its current form, I am inclined to let it stay for a while, especially as it has been up for less then a day, until at least it has gone through a few revisions by other editors. The author doesn't strike me as trying to spam, more as misunderstanding exactly what Wikipedia is for
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)