Deletion of Heim theory (3rd nomination)

Comment: by , /. Seems to be written vainly (NO prejudice or offence - just 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:RELIABLE||WP:NOTABLE||WP:VANITY)

Comment: Notable theory with |RS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: by .  '''Waleswatcher
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: Since there has been substantial coverage from multiple independent sources, I think that Heim theory passes the |GNG. However, notability is not the only reason we might delete an article. This article ''does'' have serious problems. The usual issue with fringe theories which arrive at AfD is that they're fairly low on the notability scale so all the sources are written from the same |fringe perspective and few in the mainstream have bothered discussing it, making it very hard to write a neutral article due to the imbalance of sources; this is hardly some article about unicorn-healing or atlantis, but it has a related problem. If we don't delete it, then somebody really has to take an axe to the content; what remains should be reframed from a mainstream perspective
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Wacky fringe/crackpot theory as it may be, it still is beyond notable as defined by . See also https://www.google.com/search?q=heim+theory&btnG=Cerca+nei+libri&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=it#hl=it&safe=off&tbo=d&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22heim+theory%22+physics&oq=%22heim+theory%22+physics&gs_l=serp.3...9912.10869.1.10971.8.8.0.0.0.0.151.788.4j3.7.0.pchatac..0.0...1.1.7RotZA5uLpE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.bGE&fp=18c8fbfac65a1e74&bpcl=39967673&biw=1535&bih=787 how it comes out in Gbooks: yes, most are UFO books or stuff, but still it's notable meaning it's mentioned and discussed by sources. Notable crackpottery is still notable: astrology, homeopathy etc. are notable for the same reasons. The article should make clear that it is fringe science, and this is a serious issue: but this can be dealt by editing, so it's not a reason to delete, |per deletion policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD)