Deletion of Michael J. Brooks

Comment: I am the original author of the article and the article about The Michael Brooks Show itself that was previously deleted on 11th February 2018.  The deleted article was then restored by an editor and posted to to a users's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onetwothreeip/The_Michael_Brooks_Show with the message on the deleting editor's talk page "Another plausible way I could have closed the AfD was as merge to Michael J. Brooks.".  This is now what I am attempting to do as well as adding additional secondary sources.  I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to write articles on a notable figure that was currently missing from Wikipedia that I believe warrants a page.  I have read through all the relevant guidelines and have spent some time since the Show page was deleted studying these again and I know this page meets them all including , , , , POV,  and OT.  I am concerned with how I have been treated in this whole process as a new editor.  I have also read  and I am far from convinced this has been followed by more senior editors taking part in this discussion.  In particular with reference to point 14 under 'how to avoid being a biter' - "Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out."  I am following all guidelines, yet I had one page taken down and not given the chance to improve it, or told how to improve it and have been labelled a sock puppet.  I do not think  policy has been adhered to either.  The page as it stands has multiple sources and the host involved has notable coverage in the media.  If any more experienced editors would like to point to how exactly it needs to be improved to stay then I would be welcome of the help, instead of just trying to delete a perfectly valid page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:BITE||WP:AGF)

Comment: Not enough coverage in |independent, |reliable sources to |verify or |sustian article. Fails |Wikipedia's general notability guidelines,  and . As near as I can see the material in arguably Everything else consists of blogs, Twiter and even some from Redit.  The large number of apparent 'puppets' makes me think this article is the subject of a coordinated campaign and likely undisclosed paid editing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IS||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NRV||WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR||WP:ENT)

Comment: Subject is not required to have "substantial in-depth coverage in reliable sources" as he clearly meets the qualifications for  §3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)