Deletion of Raakin Iqbal

Comment: Per above, this fails . Having a single article doesn't make someone notable enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: COI issues can be addressed in a future AfD. But whatever we think of self-promotion, the fact is sometimes it works. It is possible to promote oneself enough to get noticed -- and this guy seems to have done it. There's enough coverage to meet  and . He's managed to get independent publications to mouth his alliterative slogans. Don't know how he did it, but there they are, sourced. So they're entitled to be in the article. Fair is fair
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:V)

Comment: What we have here is a person who is good at promoting them self (thats why he created his own Wikipedia page).  This does not make him notable, at best we have two sources for the article, but this really isn't multiple non verifiable sources as stipulated by .  The Washington post article comes close but it to has a hint of self promotion, who does he know at the Washington Post (which for some reason seems to be a source in a lot of AFD debates).  The YouTube video is an interview and in my mind should not be used as a biographical source as it may violate .  What exactly has Mr. Iqbal done that makes him notable?  Nothing, starting your own company does not make you notable, even if the Washington Post reports on it.  Self promotion does not equal notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:AUTO)

Comment: fails  at present. Maybe next year. Shirahadasha sees COI exactly the opposite as I do; I don't see COI as a reason in itself to delete an article, but when notability is iffy, COI is generally the tipping point for me. Get your undisputed notability the usual way, and don't game Wikipedia to get there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: WP:BIO, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)