Deletion of Jekejeke Prolog

Comment: Anyone attempting to contribute to a discussion of deletion of an article should be familiar with at least the rough outlines of the general notability guideline , and should have some sense of what arguments to avoid () in deletion discussions. Jan Burse is welcome to rejoin this discussion after he has done so
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATA)

Comment: WP:COI-violator Jan Burse belittles a statement I made as only an "allegation"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jekejeke_Prolog&diff=prev&oldid=491778617 ''after'' he'd already determined it had a basis,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jekejeke_Prolog&diff=next&oldid=491770950 and (far worse) ''after'' he'''some anonymous IP-only editor''' removed his own comment proving that he had discovered it had a basis.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jekejeke_Prolog&diff=next&oldid=491770950. The only way I can  after this? Assume that he's suffering from amnesia. In which case, that's just another reason he shouldn't be in this AfD discussion. At this point, given both his obtuseness about policy and his attempt to impugn another contributor to this discussion, I think it would make sense to ban him from this discussion for disruptive editing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)