Deletion of AjoChhand Machine

Comment: as non-notable per . Note to creator of article and friends - make your "keep" arguments once. Posting walls of text in response to every "delete" comment, is not helpful (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TLDR)

Comment: Three google scholar hits, none of which are all primary sources per our  policy, none of which are independent of the author.   Also, as others have pointed out, all of these hits are effectively self-published
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Expert''')&mdash;I'm not sure what this says about me, but I do have an inkling about the contents of the article.  The short version:  implement a general Turing Machine using only directed acyclic graph: each state/vertex encodes the entire execution history up to that point.  If you remember Finite Automata from your CompSci theory class, think of this as Infinite Automata where no state can be visited twice.  Maybe.  Or maybe not.  Anyway, single papers with single-digit citation counts and zero coverage in |reliable sources don't pass our notability guidelines.  I doubt very much this is a hoax&mdash;it's far too over the top for that&mdash;but neither does it belong on enWP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This is based on a single |primary source (footnote 1; there are 35 footnotes but all others predate the main publication on this topic and are used as background information only). It is published in a low-quality journal –&nbsp;its publisher, MDPI, is on Beall's list of "predatory open access journals", meaning that they take basically anything, with little or no peer review, and profit by charging authors publication fees. Google scholar only lists two other papers citing this one, both looking to be equally low quality. The publication itself is a mishmash of unrelated buzzwords linked together with little rhyme or reason, enough to make one wonder whether it was constructed by http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ SCIgen rather than anything resembling human intelligence. The article creator has spammed this material across multiple other Wikipedia articles on more notable topics (that are unrelated to each other and to this mess). This is |original research (barely dignified by publication in something that carries the trappings of, but is not, a scientific journal), non-notable, and probably also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:OR||WP:COI)