Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (2nd nomination)
The subject is notable enough to meet , mainly for his activities on the |fringe.  I would ordinarily give weight to a subject's request to be deleted when the subject is basically a private person who did not seek the notability on which his/her Wikipedia presence is predicated.  LaViolette is certainly not shrinking from the public light as evidenced by his multiple appearances on ''Coast to Coast AM'', which in my understanding is about as notable as radio gets when you're talking about fringe-y stuff.  His complaints about the article (as reflected on the talk page) strike me as being more about tone (and a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies) than any substantial misstatements of fact-- except maybe for his implication that we should ignore ''Science (journal)|Science'' as unreliable (!). As JamesBWatson has pointed out on the talk page, while the subject may object to the use of the term "unorthodox" to describe his theories, that description seems entirely correct. On the other hand I do grok  Seb az86556's sentiment, which is why I'm currently "weak" on this.  If there is anything more to his OTRS request, it would certainly be helpful to know
— User:Arxiloxos, 21:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Notability)