Deletion of Alternative Alternatives

Comment: The article obviously has some serious quality problems (grammar, organization, markup, |style), but it doesn't appear unsalvageable.   Some serious copy-editing could fix it up.  It seems like some legitimate sources have been added.  Does not seem like typical spam; the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_Alternatives&oldid=227489483 initial version had no external references at all, and the current links appear varied (i.e., not promoting anything specific).  I'm somewhat concerned that {{user|MatthiasKnab}} and {{user|Hedgewiz}} might be the same person, but perhaps that person |didn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia accounts.  In my book,  violations alone don't automatically mean all contributed articles must be deleted.  I'm most concerned with the actual subject matter.  If the term is so new that it's not well-defined, that suggests it might be |too new for an encyclopedia article.  I also find most of the cited usage is casual mention of the idea, not a formal treatment or study of the concept.  Assuming it is well-defined, is there enough for a |full article?  |Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Perhaps the concept should be merged into some more general article.  Ultimately, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, which is why I can't come down firmly one way or the other
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS||WP:AGF||WP:SPA||WP:NEO||WP:SIZE||WP:DICT)

Comment: per , #OR, #WEBSPACE and  indeed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:SPAM)

Comment: WP:OWN is never reason to delete an article.  WP:OWN is strictly about contributor behavior, not article content.  Conflicts of interest can obviously lead to article content issues, but  specifically states that they are "not a reason to delete an article".  I do think this article has issues which might warrant its deletion (as you imply with those other links), but I think you're painting with a bit too broad a brush.  Just some (hopefully) constructive criticism; nothing personal
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)