Deletion of Paul LaViolette

Comment: As he is a fringe scientist  and  are probably more relevant than , which is aimed more at orthodox academics. There was a certain amount of media attention for the legal case that arose when LaViolette was fired from the Patent Office for his fringe beliefs: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16722546.400-feedback.html http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/284/5418/1254 http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0800/081100lb.htm http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1553809/Cold-fusion-confusion-the-Equal.html etc. But these are almost completely unrelated to the content of the present article, and 1E would apply to an article based only on these sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:FRINGE||WP:PROF||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: The article asserts that the subject is obscure, and the article lacks |reliable sources. Clearly the subject fails  and the label "scientist" in the lead has no verification
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PROF)

Comment: unless reliable independent sources can be found (i.e. neither  websites nor blogs). At the current state I've been unable to find any reliably sourced fact in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: the improved article as meeting 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There was mention of e.g.  above, but this ''particular'' article describes him almost entirely in the context of mainstream science: "is an American scientist", "articles in various scientific journals..", "holds the patent for...", "was the first to predict that high intensity volleys of cosmic ray particles...", and so on. The cold fusion/USPTO incident is only mentioned peripherally, as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)