Deletion of Paul LaViolette (3rd nomination)

Comment: per conclusive arguments from earlier AfDs. To summarize: His books are ''not'' widely held, nor is there significant, reliable coverage. In fact, coverage was vastly overstated. There was "George Noory's biography of LaViolette...", but this turned out to be nothing more than a http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/laviolette-paul/6647 few sentences of PR fluff on a radio show web page. There was also material from the subject's own http://www.etheric.com/Starburst/Starburst.html Starburst Foundation (not independent). Then there was the "article" in New Scientist, which turned out to be just a trivial mention. The best that could be mustered was an article in a local alternative newspaper, the Washington City Paper. The "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" that were promised numerous times in those debates never materialized and still have not, as is obvious from the article's references. The Special:Contributions/Radova|account that re-created this article is clearly a  and it's likely that this article would be re-re-created if this discussion ends in a "delete". Respectfully
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: barring any more convincing evidence, to give some credence to notability, in which case I will revisit this discussion) From the above, I conclude, that this subject does not meet our |notability guidelines, as I unable to find sufficient coverage in '''independent''' |reliable sources. Considering the apparent efforts to promote the notability on non-reliable websites, and the consequent efforts to validate it on Wikipedia, I do recommend that if we can agree this matter, '''we should also |salt the page'''. I'd also like to apologize to everyone here for taking time by removing the PROD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:SALT)

Comment: I hope people understand my reasons "removing PROD; in all fairness the AfD was almost a year ago, and not a clear-cut case, so with all due respect, I think if this is to be deleted, it deserves a discussion; no problem if you wish to take it to AfD."http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_LaViolette&diff=377831089&oldid=377791543, and I am sorry if I have caused unnecessary debate; perhaps I |AGF too much, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, I suppose. I thought it'd have a fair chance of  /  given http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Paul+LaViolette%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=7mBkTPbqIMbqOM7BvaoK&ved=0CBEQpwU Google News, http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22Paul%20LaViolette%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ns scholar - so hopefully my rationale for de-prod wasn't too insane
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)