Deletion of Ralph Ellis (author)

Comment: From a BEFORE, I believe the Author does pass in 2017 (as opposed to 2006 the previous AfD) GNG and AUTHOR(3) (though it is note a clearly obvious pass). Specifically he passes AUTHOR(3) due to quite a bit of fringy/tabloid coverage of these various Biblical claims. However, the current article is mainly used to repeat Ellis's claims and doesn't treat him critically - essentially a . If the article is modified to reflect mainly the reception of these claims (in non-tabloids), I am amenable to change my !vote per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:HEY)

Comment: As the creator of the article, is it considered appropriate for me to vote? At any rate, I would like to respond to {{u|KDS4444}}.  gives 4 criteria for judging the notability of an author. I believe that Ellis qualifies under ''(2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'' and ''(3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.''  specifically says that many scholars ''are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:PEOPLE)

Comment: Ellis's only marginal claim to fame is his pseudo-theories about the Bible. It's relevant to point out that Ellis is not a scholar and that none of his writings satisfies . He does not satisfy a single point of . He did not come up with the fringe theory he espouses, he is not taken serious by any actual scholar in the field, and his books have had no impact on the field
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:AUTHOR)