Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression
as per notes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APA Tactical|here, it may be that sources exist to support this article, but not APA Tactical - the company run by the individual who developed the system. I will have a look for some references (and I understand the original author has said he would provide some). The original author has a clear |conflict of interest and has openly (to his credit) acknowledged that in the AfD for APA Tactical. I think part of the issue may be that the original author could be considered an |expert editor - one of the few people with expertise in this particular field. As such, he has created this system, developed this system and is providing information to the public about this system. That does not make his system inherently |notable, nor does it circumvent  issues and it gets very close to . But I think we do need to be careful about how we approach this. The product itself (the company) may not be notable, the person who invented it may not |inherit notability from it but the system itself (in a non-commercial context) may be notable (which is what I understand the original author has suggested). I think any proposed references provided in an effort to justify '''Keep'''ing this article should be verified by non-COI editors. Given the original author's conduct and approach thus far, I can't see that suggestion being a problem. If sources cannot be provided that allow the article to meet , then it should be '''Delete'''d
— [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart111''']] [[User talk:Stalwart111|(talk)]], 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:EXPERT||WP:N||WP:COI||WP:PROMO||WP:INHERIT||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)