Deletion of Quantum-Touch (3rd nomination)

Comment: Not readily distinguishable from thousands of other slight variations on energy therapy et. al.  The BBC mention isn't sufficient to support an article, as insufficient third-party coverage to build a reliable, NPOV article.  Also, in the spirit of , I feel like articles from reliable sources that are transparently the result of an editor being up against a deadline and going Googling should be discounted.  An half-paragraph from the BBC's '10 Guys I met in the Grocery' wouldn't entitle Micky the stock boy to his own article, sourced from his mum
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IGNORE)

Comment: No reliable sources - article would not be able to satisfy  considering the nature of the references. Also, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: The article has undergone significant changes during the last AfD, and in it's current form, I don't see any problems with it.  It is not up to Wikipedia to decide how the BBC should do it's reports; if they wish to copy and paste a press release from a company, that is their perogative, and until they are no longer widely regarded as a reliable source, we can't simply discount their reports by choice.  Also, it should be obvious that most of the references and links will go to websites maintained by groups who subscribe to the belief that this corporation's products.  The E-meter used by Scientology and the Religious Technology Center that produces it are similar entities with similar articles that have the same kind of issues that you put forth as grounds for deletion, when in fact, they are simply inherent to this kind of article.  Also,  should be considered here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)