Deletion of Franco Selleri

Comment: My belief is that the subject doesn't meet any of the Notability criteria listed at rof. Since this seems to be disputed, let's take them one at a time, and see if we can isolate which criteria might apply
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: There seems to be agreement that the relevant measure of notability is #1. There also seems to be near-agreement that Selleri has published in mainstream as well as non-mainstream physics (referred to as "crank physics" above). P0CF1A and MathSci and  do not agree with treating both types of publications equally. I propose the following procedure: ask whether Selleri is notable according to  #1 in mainstream and non-mainstream physics separately (as if they were different disciplines) using the usual tools of citation counting and the h-index. If he is notable according to either, keep the article. Otherwise, delete. If the article is kept per non-mainstream physics, the article should reflect this (it has to be rewritten anyway because of copyvio). Neutral words, such as "non-mainstream", "controversial", "polemic", etc. could be used if reliable sources exist. In think that this proposal addresses all points of view expressed in the discussion so far. Finally, as a user of Wikipedia, I would be interested in reading about controversies in Physics and about their proponents if they are notable enough, no matter how wrong their propositions are
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Per Xxanthippe and Agricola44. Meets  criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Strange indeed. Note that the prodder of the article, 130.76.32.182, has had many warnings. For "author:Franco Selleri" GS gives cites of 181, 177, 99, 70, 51, 46... h-index about 17. Seems ample for rof #1
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)