Deletion of Stopping Traffic

Comment: Meets  per a source review. Concerns about the article's tone can be addressed by copy editing it and discussion on the article talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFP)

Comment: Does seem to meet .Real reviews in real publications
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFP)

Comment: per meeting  through existing coverage. While wonderful if or when it happens, we do not demand |perfection. Any concerns over tone or "advocacy" can be |dealt with through |regular editing. We do not delete notable topics over |ugliness, we instead fix
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:PERFECTION||WP:HANDLE||WP:IMPROVE||WP:UGLY)

Comment: and'' allow restoration to userspace if asked, because what the one fundamental policy the Keeps have considered or said yet, is https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities our Terms of Use at Wikimedia Foundation which says in bold: '''These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities....As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation''' and considering the user apparently never cared to openly disclose it, but worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/L7starlight actually make an extensive list of such activities, it unquestionably shows they must not be given the luxury of such covert attempts. After all, our ive pillars says, '''Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia''' and must not be used for promotion or advertising. This is no different if we honestly take our Terms of Use seriously, since one exception will inevitably lead any advertiser to ask for it again, that is not concept of this encyclopedia, especially when such votes above only care to mention "Sources exist", "Has sources", "Good sources, "Article can be improved" (the latter, how exactly? If the Terms of use is different than any simple '''content guideline'''). Another comment then says "it's not a puff piece" yet that's contrary to what our Terms of use listed above says it to be
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F)