Deletion of Andrew nisker

Comment: The improper capitalisation is particularly unimpressive. COI issues, breaches 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)

Comment: The body content is literally ''identical'' to the version that was deleted in 2017 — which had been flagged as paid editing by a PR flack, thus suggesting that the same thing might be happening here as well — but the referencing is even weaker. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they and their work technically verify as existing — it is an ''encyclopedia'', on which certain specific markers of notability have to be ''achieved'' for an article to become ''earned''. There are certainly ''potentially'' valid claims of notability here, in that there are enough unsourced review quotes to suggest that he ''might'' pass  on critical attention to his films, but they're so wrapped up in advertorial bumf that it's difficult to sort out what's a legitimate notability claim and what's self-promoting fluff. In order to actually be kept, this article would have to be rewritten literally from scratch, in a much more |neutral and objective tone and making much more effort to properly cite |reliable sources. So '''salt''' both this and the properly capitalized original title as well — if somebody wants to take a stab at rewriting a ''proper'' article that makes a legitimate and properly sourced case for his notability, then they can do that in draftspace and submit it for AFC review
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOV||WP:RS)

Comment: as recreation of a deleted article by an editor with exactly enough edits to get autoconfirmed status before posting this fully formatted 11kb+ article on their 11th edit. Unambiguous . Again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)