Deletion of Myron Evans (2nd nomination)

Comment: fails , and notability as a meme in popular culture is not established
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per nominator and bogdan. Does not seem to meet the requirements of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: This case is not really clear-cut. The editorial by Nobelist 't Hooft (cited in the article) mentions 15 papers published in the journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" (not part of Foundations of Physics and another two articles dedicated solely to refuting Evans' theory. On the other hand, the citation record is rather dismal: Scopus mentions two articles cited 14 and 13 times, the rest are in the single digits. Taken together, I think this fails  and barring coverage in mainstream media, also . As an aside, not every theory that is wrong is pseudoscience. Given that this theory was published in respected physics journals (there are also articles in Physica B: Condensed Matter and Acta Physica Polonica, Series B), I would hesitate to call this pseudoscience
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)