Deletion of Heim theory (4th nomination)

Comment: Here we go again. Notable per : see for a quick example 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&fp=1&bpcl=39967673&biw=1535&bih=787&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=R7bjUdm0DIXd4QTMnID4BQ coverage in books. That said, the nomination rationale is invalid. Is it crackpottery? Sure thing. Is "crackpottery" a deletion rationale? Not at all. Notable crackpot theories are still notable. By having this article, Wikipedia does not "promote" anything, we just describe a wacky theory that exists. NPOV/UNDUE problems can be solved by editing, so they're not a reason to delete, per |deletion policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD)