Deletion of Imagined interaction

Comment: The topic is probably notable, but significant portions of the article are incomprehensible.  This is one of the clearer cases where an article should be |blown up and started over.  The collapsed argument by the |SPA and the article have more or less the same quality.  This does not mean that the SPA is a |suckpoppet, but it may mean that the topic attracts this sort of rhetoric
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:SPA||WP:SOCK)

Comment: this is based entirely on primary sources, and there don't appear to be any |reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I was drawn to this discussion by the related AfD on James M. Honeycutt.  The article here does not make a convincing case for notability.  I am skeptical that it does hold, and in any case  applies.  Comment that the  wielded by the SPA (and interaction with wikipedia software) is making the discussion a bit difficult to navigate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:BLUDGEON)