Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (3rd nomination)
per conclusive arguments from earlier AfDs. To summarize: His books are ''not'' widely held, nor is there significant, reliable coverage. In fact, coverage was vastly overstated. There was "George Noory's biography of LaViolette...", but this turned out to be nothing more than a http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/laviolette-paul/6647 few sentences of PR fluff on a radio show web page. There was also material from the subject's own http://www.etheric.com/Starburst/Starburst.html Starburst Foundation (not independent). Then there was the "article" in New Scientist, which turned out to be just a trivial mention. The best that could be mustered was an article in a local alternative newspaper, the Washington City Paper. The "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" that were promised numerous times in those debates never materialized and still have not, as is obvious from the article's references. The Special:Contributions/Radova|account that re-created this article is clearly a  and it's likely that this article would be re-re-created if this discussion ends in a "delete". Respectfully
— User:Agricola44, 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SPA (Wikipedia:Single-purpose account)