Deletion of Socionomics (2nd nomination)

Comment: I’m sorry, but wp:neo says nothing about whether a topic “exists” – what it |does say is, "''If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner''." Our task here is to either acknowledge that the article meets that standard, or explain why we believe it doesn’t
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per #G4; in the alternative '''delete''' or '''merge''' with Robert Prechter.   ("An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material"),  ("publication by itself is not a sufficient (and sometimes not necessary) standard for encyclopedic notability."), and, most critically : "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."  Severe  problems, too.  As the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics|first AFD nomination documented assiduously, the "third party, independent, reliable sources" are largely imaginary or neither third-party nor independent, and, in any event, too rare to qualify as |notable.  , too.   Per , there already exists an ancillary article, Robert Prechter: every single one of the supposed reliable sources mentioned that I've checked so far was really about or by Prechter (or not about socionomics at all).  And I'd like to see some administrative investigation: why was the same editor with a severe COI who disruptively and decisively lost an AFD after being found to have faked evidence allowed to recreate the same article without Wikipedia:Deletion review|going through the administrative processes for reversing a decision or notifying the people who voted for its deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:NEO||WP:SCI||WP:WEIGHT||WP:COI||WP:N||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:WEIGHT)