Deletion of Scott G. Stewart

Comment: One modestly substantial piece in a newspaper (''USA Today'') isn't really enough to meet , and the  issues make it a clear delete in my view.  The lack of general coverage of Stewart means that the article ends up being dominated by the unproven allegations, which (as DGG noted) makes it function as an attack page. I assume that was not the intent of the article's creator(s), but it is the effect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP)

Comment: this is a fairly strange case, not helped by the two |SPAs who have chosen this AfD and a related article each as their only articles of interest. I can only imagine there's some serious |sock-puppetry going on. I have had a look at the sources - one was broken so I fixed it, another was a dead link and the original article is now behind a pay-wall so I hid it. Strictly speaking, I think the subject does (just) meet  on the basis of the articles provided - three articles either focussed on the subject or that mention him specifically and provide more than just passing mentions. I acknowledge that the articles that remain aren't particularly complimentary, but if we deleted every BLP on the basis that notability should be established only by "complimentary" coverage then we would lose many BLP articles over-night. However, given the meeting of  is (at this stage) marginal, given the subject has requested deletion and given our want to uphold the principle of |doing no harm, I'd be inclined to delete. It is worth pointing out, I think, that one or two more sources could probably put  beyond doubt, regardless of whether they speak highly of the subject or not. If the subject were to receive more coverage in the future (regardless of tone) an article could possibly be justified again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:SOC||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:HARM||WP:GNG)