Deletion of SpiderGraph chart

Comment: Frankly, I'm surprised this was even relisted, as (after ignoring the tl;dr) the concensus looked pretty clear. Regardless, the article fails to make the case that this has any independent notability from radar charts; most of the references are not about SpiderGraphs (as opposed to being about radar charts) and the one exception, the supposed Chester 1985 paper, can't be |verified to even exist and certainly does not appear to have been cited by anyone else. Additionally, the tone of the article is overly promotional, and the behavior at this AfD does not give me any confidence that it can be remedied easily
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Hoping to get some discussion that does not consist of walls of text from the |COI author
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I am extremely concerned by the apparent onflict of interest by the article's writer, who is acting as a ingle-purpose account here; the  responses only make it worse. Okay, so this SpiderGraph chart is a product among many, and it differs ever so slighty from the others (which product doesn't?). The majority of the current article tries to show this difference from normal spider charts. However, this screams advertisement to me, and wikipedia shouldn't be a plateform for this kind of material. Any general stuff should be mentioned (along with non-promotional sources) in the Spider chart article, e.g. to illustrate minor possible deviations, the rest is simply  in my eyes. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:S||WP:TLDR||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: or '''merge''' with radar chart. Putting aside the sidebar issues ( and the wall of text above), this is clearly a non-notable variant of radar charts, and one does not need to be a statistician to realize this. As far as I can tell, the claim to notability stems from a single article "Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985" and other references on the page aren't really about the subject: this is insufficient for notability. Additionally, it may be a different issue if the paper in question was famous/celebrated, but that appears not to be the case since, well, I can't seem to find it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: Not notable.  Close to |original research in the claims that we should have an article on this because it's better - that's not for the creator to decide, it's for the other writers whose accounts establish |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N)