The result was keep. The only question before us is whether the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. This view seems to have consensus here among P&G-based opinions. I recognize the fact that the page could have been speedy-deleted under G5 immediately upon its creation, but at this point, with dozens of editors in good standing having participated, it no longer qualifies under G5.
As for WP:DENY, this essay discusses dealing with disruptive vandals and trolls, not with paid editing and encyclopedic content. It certainly doesn't compel us to remove an article about a notable topic just to "punish" a banned user, harming the project by this deletion. However, we can easily remove the banned sock's contributions from the page history with selective RevDel, although I'm not sure what would be achieved by doing so.
In the end, an editor got paid to create an article about a topic for which we actually want an article, albeit not the one they wrote, of course. WP:UNDUE, NPOV and other content issues should be dealt with editorially, not out of WP:SPITE. Any admin may procedurally close a renomination before 18 June 2024. Owen× ☎ 20:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)