Deletion of Nassim Haramein (3rd nomination)

Comment: per  and secondarily . Pseudo-physics can be a worthy subject of an article, if it's attracted enough attention and discussion in reliable sources (Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory|ECE theory comes to mind, for example), but this doesn't reach that level. I had at first thought that The Connected Universe|the documentary might be more notable than the person, but on closer investigation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Connected Universe|the movie doesn't appear notable either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:PROF)

Comment: Publication of one paper &mdash; in a journal so obscure we don't have an article for it &mdash; is not nearly enough to satisfy 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The subject does not meet  or  or . What we're left with is something of a  and, according to that criteria, there do not seem to be the |independent, reliable sources that indicate Haramein has made the notable mark necessary for Wikipedia to be able to have a decent article about him. These are difficult cases because there are a lot of fans and followers who have generated content about him on various platforms, but they fail our  tests for what we would need to write a decent article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR||WP:CELEBRITY||WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:FRIND||WP:RS)

Comment: clearly fails . This article has been around the block 3 times and the current version has been here since June, but still the best source that we find is a paragraph in Hollywood Reporter about a crowdfunded documentary. When there are '''multiple, independent, reliable''' sources that discuss the subject '''directly and in detail''', we can talk again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Nassim Haramein has nine publication, not only one and some of them were written with Elizabeth A. Rauscher, a well known physycist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Rauscher. He is not an academic and don't satisfy  but he clearly satisfies  looking at all his work as physicist researcher (he found a non-profit organization 501c3 committed to advancing the research), inventor (he has 4 patents https://www.google.fr/search?safe=off&dcr=0&tbm=pts&source=hp&q=nassim+haramein&oq=nassim+&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.35i39k1l2j0l2.1356.2133.0.3747.8.7.0.0.0.0.121.666.4j3.7.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.7.664.0..0i67k1.I2c4iRQ9JuA&gws_rd=cr&ei=89KuWYrdIcfdwQLwnZfQBA), speaker and entrepreneur (creation of a startup https://www.torustech.com/) and looking at all the third source talking about all this work (film, webTV, magazine, interviews, etc
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: Your claim about "fans and followers" can apply on fan website and blogs like the one of bobathon. And it is true, there are a lot of them because this new theory inspires a lot of peopel. But it is not about these sources. The  used in this articles are magazines like Nexus or Face the Current, webTV like Gaia, TedX talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsl_klqVh0, mainstream films like Thrive or The Connected Universe or for well knonwn journalist like Bob Bellanca https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Bellanca. There are plenty  to write a pretty decent and interesting article based only on facts. Stop trying to censure and stay on the facts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)