Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Cyclopia, 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:ATD (Wikipedia:Notability)