Deletion of Stuttering Hexagon

Comment: The whole thing reads as if it were a case study. The tone violates  and the sourcing leaves much to be desired
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Per nom. Also, when the Keep support is from s, an editor who https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikiweb10011/Archive admits being paid on another article, and a strongly suspected sockpuppet one has to wonder if this (possibly promotional) article really can stand on its own two feet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: Due the the presence of  accounts giving non-policy-based reasons to keep this paid article, it appears that there may be sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting going on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: Fails . Google scholar has "Developing a new paradigm for stuttering."  listed as cited twice. While practitioners Bodenhamer and Margolina, and a couple of others, mention or use the hexagon, it has not caught on so as to meet the paradigm equivalent of |#1.  It is not a reason for deletion, but it is interesting that the Stuttering article, at the time I write this, did not mention the hexagon or J. Harrison
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ACADEMIC)