Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination)
One cannot evaluate a case like that purely formally and we have to look at the overall picture. That picture, as far as I can tell, is that the subject's activities are mainly in the  area, and there is not enough specific coverage of him from non-fringe reliable sources to write a proper WP article that would be neither an embarrassment to Wikipedia nor a BLP nightmare. In specific terms, cases of this sort, where a scientist mainly works in a  area, should not be judged by  standards but should routed through  instead. Certainly rough metrics like h-index should not be used as a way of justifying passing  #C1. Santilli and his IBR  set up a number of journals ("Hadronic Journal", "Hadronic Journal Supplement", "Algebras, Groups and Geometries", and probably others that I don't know about), where much of his fringe work and that of his disciples has been published. Many citations returned by GScholar search are for his publications in this fringe journals and many of the citing articles are in various fringe sources as well.  GScholar can't tell the difference and we here are not qualified to sift through them and figure out what's what there and which citing articles referring to his work are  and which are . I don't know about physics, but in my own field, math, Santilli's work has been almost entirely ignored and almost nobody has heard of him. The first time I became aware of his name was when some years ago  some colleague in my department noticed that Santilli's journal "Algebras, Groups and Geometries" published in 1998 three short "proofs" of Fermat's Last Theorem. That was already well after Wiles. Of course, these "proofs" were nonsense, and their reviews in MathSciNet are rather amusing. I think our library was still subscribing to that journal at the time because it was very cheap, but after that event we cancelled our subscription. By now MathSciNet no longer indexes any of Santilli's journals. I don't know anything about his physics work, and it would seem that he made a bit more of a splash there. But still, I am just not seeing enough specific coverage from non-fringe  sources to be able to create a decent article here which would not be a BLP disaster. Therefore I believe the article needs to go
— User:Nsk92, 05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:FRINGE||WP:FRINGE||WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:FRINGE||WP:RS||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)