Deletion of Martin Tajmar

Comment: I do not think he is a kook (well, no more than is the norm for Breakthrough Propulsion), but he is not even close to meeting . There are an almost limitless number of people with tweaks to BCS or GR or whatever,  says we wait until one of them generates significant independent coverage for being right or they become notable for some other reason
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BALL)

Comment: The nominator is incorrect on both counts. '''1.''' As the discoverer of a new effect, the subject easily meets criterion 5 of , and the effect has been discussed and researched by independent researchers (e.g. the U. of Canterbury group).  '''2.''' However closely I read the article, I fail to see any evidence of "fringe" science--this is a reputable mainstream scientist doing grant-funded research for a respectable international body (the ESA).  It seems like the nominator strung together several loaded phrases ("coatracking", "fringe theory", etc.) without really understanding what they refer to.  There is no evidence of coatracking, etc. within the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Doesn't meet , article seems to be about his alleged discovery, rather than about him, material might be appropriate under some other title. But as written the article isn't a biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per , greater than average prof. Philosophically, I support academics somewhat notable in their field, however narrow their field is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)