I thought that the last version of the "authorship" section prior to removal was clear enough that this was "nutter-territory stuff" that nobody could think Wikipedia was promoting it — and since the subject had been discussed in reliable sources, I thought that a brief mention (and dismissal, by the same reliable sources) was appropriate.  But if an apparent consensus of my fellow editors disagrees, I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to reinstate it. 

 One further point to Kauffner: the reasons you may find Cashill's theory plausible are irrelevant to Wikipedia.  If you want the section reinstated, you need to make the argument in terms of Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V.  Your goal should not be to convince Wikipedia editors that the theory is correct (it's not, and that's irrelevant); it should be to convince Wikipedia editors that the theory is noteworthy.  See the quotation from Jimbo Wales at WP:WEIGHT: most editors seem to think that this theory is "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and therefore "does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." If you want this to be included, you need to prove that it's "held by a significant minority" and you need to "name prominent adherents".  Jack Cashill is not sufficiently prominent to meet this standard. —  •