Deletion of Dehaene-Changeux Model

Comment: Those that did, thank you for assuming good faith. While my quick nom may not be up to regular standards, I still see only self-references in the article, which was my initial and continuing concern.  I'm not an expert, but if we can't |verify using |reliable sources that are not |primary sources, there is a criteria "concern" at the very least. Most of us have seen many articles pop up that are based only on primary sources, some are likely fine, others are beyond fringe.  The purpose of requiring wp:v and wp:rs is so you ''don't have to be an expert to know the difference''.  We don't make exceptions because a few editors claim it is important enough for inclusion without verfication (''even if they are correct'') as this would be a rule ripe for abusing.  Putting all personal issues aside, there is a legitimate concern about the lack of verification from 3rd parties, and this has not changed since the nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:PRIMARY)