Deletion of The Great Story (2nd nomination)

Comment: The article has cites to works and websites by what are described as participants in a common movement that largely appear to be self-published.  For this reason, it appears at first glance to be potentially |original research. Do we have any |independent sources commenting on this subject and independently |verifying that (a) The various disparate individuals works really comprise a connected subject or movement (otherwise, collecting them into a subject would represent an |original research synthesis) and (b) the subject is |notable? The fact that some of these individuals may be scientists is irrelevant because they are talking in their "story" hats, not their scientific ones. For this reason I believe this article needs to be evaluated as would any article on a claimed new religious movement or development that cites largely to movement participant's own self-published works. As with any religion article, independent sources are the key to avoiding a delete. If there are independent sources referenced and I've missed them, would it be possible to list some of them here? Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:SYNTH||WP:N)