Deletion of Paul LaViolette (2nd nomination)

Comment: He satisfies  as normally applied.  The Patent Office case alone was covered in multiple sources, including a couple of articles in ''Slate'' that don't appear in GNews results (I see them in results using Nexis); I've just added a quote from one and a ref from another.  As usual, there are more sources than are available via GNews.  Sure, I could add them, spend hours working on this article, but it's not necessary for me to do so before I express the view that I'm well satisfied that the sources available establish notability.  And again he is not eligible for deletion on privacy grounds
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: As far as I can tell, there've been no substantive changes in the notability situation since we last debated this case a few months ago. Summarizing, there wasn't enough to pass on , so the debate seemed to focus on more of a general pass, e.g. keep "the improved article as meeting 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: marginal at best, barely squeaks by  if at all. The subject-request clinches it for me. Per Jimbo's famed comment; ''"We are not here to hurt people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Since LaViolette is a willing public figure, his opinion about whether or not he should have an article should not get weight. I can't tell if he meets  but he easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: The subject is notable enough to meet , mainly for his activities on the |fringe.  I would ordinarily give weight to a subject's request to be deleted when the subject is basically a private person who did not seek the notability on which his/her Wikipedia presence is predicated.  LaViolette is certainly not shrinking from the public light as evidenced by his multiple appearances on ''Coast to Coast AM'', which in my understanding is about as notable as radio gets when you're talking about fringe-y stuff.  His complaints about the article (as reflected on the talk page) strike me as being more about tone (and a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies) than any substantial misstatements of fact-- except maybe for his implication that we should ignore ''Science (journal)|Science'' as unreliable (!). As JamesBWatson has pointed out on the talk page, while the subject may object to the use of the term "unorthodox" to describe his theories, that description seems entirely correct. On the other hand I do grok  Seb az86556's sentiment, which is why I'm currently "weak" on this.  If there is anything more to his OTRS request, it would certainly be helpful to know
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Not an easy decision to make. On the one hand, it does look like he passes . On the other hand, when you read further there really isn't any indication that his contributions have made significant impact. We need third party sources to show that these were infact significant contributions to physics. So, delete per nom
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Does not meet . His paper predicting the "high intensity volleys of cosmic rays" has been cited 6 times only. If it were really important, it would have been cited more than that since 1987. The rest nothing special. Perhaps notable as an author (seven books), but rest of it is not. Hence delete. Especially when considering the potential BLP problems
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)