Deletion of Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination)

Comment: people interested in retaining this article should probably try and find some secondary sources.  Basing an article strictly on primary sources is not #Primary and secondary sources|best practice
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: WP:Reliable sources and erifiability say: "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: There was just a AfD earlier this month. This article is based on primary sources. It is perfectly legitimate to cite authors of books as a sources about what tbeir own own books say. Just because there are no secondary sources available, it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. And, Neo-Tech is definitely noteable.  (neologism) doesn't even apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: If they're not important enough, then shouldn't the article be zapped, according to otable? And again, I refer to the quote above from EO
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NEO)