Deletion of Daniel Delaney

Comment: While there is considerable COI and |soapbox issues, the article has been spruced up with several reliable sources and is verifiable. I would look at the IP address that recently tweaked the article and possibly block the editor from editing the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: Delusional" seems a bit harsh and not in keeping with our policies about |civility and  |assuming good faith.  I would have supported deletion when this originally autobiographical article was first created nearly three years ago.  But what has happened since then? Notability, that's what.  In depth coverage in the Los Angeles Times.  An interview on the CBS Evening News.  Coverage in the New York Daily News and USA Weekend (circulation 22.6 million).  Writeups in Hollywood trade publications like the Hollywood Reporter and Tubefilter, which is one of the most professional sites covering web media.  Just what do terms like "delusional" and "wannabe" mean in this context
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVILITY||WP:AGF)