Deletion of Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination)

Comment: Borderline, but in my opinion of the sources listed, there are enough reliable independent sources to constitute "signficant coverage", passing 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm seeing sufficient multiple examples of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (non-fringe) via https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&tbm=bks&q=%22Ruggero+Santilli%22+-wikipedia&oq=%22Ruggero+Santilli%22+-wikipedia&gs_l=serp.3...64383.67368.0.68491.11.11.0.0.0.0.276.1365.1j9j1.11.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.1.276...33i160.ah093Ai8pHk GoogleBooks and https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Ruggero+Santilli%22 Highbeam, and in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruggero_Santilli&oldid=731544441 some of the current citations for the wiki article; so he passes . Problems with the current wiki article's sourcing and/or content and/or COI and/or POV should be dealt with through normal editing processes rather than through AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as in first AfD. Subject is fringey, but notably fringey. A GS h-index of 26 shows that rof#C1 has been well passed. Nominator seems to have axes to grind
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)