Deletion of Newtonian time in economics

Comment: This article is |BS barely supported by the sources cited. |Perhaps it was not intended that way, but that's what it reads like. It's entirely based on one source, a book which has ''very'' bad reviews, e.g. http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae1_1_11.pdf (Words stemming from "confusion", "bewilder", and "mislead" abound in this review.) Further, most of the wikilinks are wrong, because as it's amply explained in that review, O'Driscoll & Rizzo do not use real time and similar concepts in any standard sense, but have their own implied definitions. E.g. "Remember, the authors' whole idea of "real time" is that the present is connected to the past by memory and to the future by anticipation." This is contrasted to "static (or Newtonian)" time by which they mean "time treated as an independent mathematical variable". And if that's not enough, they don't even define their counter-theory: "There is nothing in von Mises that says that decision making is preordained or predetermined by what went before. So what is "dynamic subjectivism"? No clear answer can be found in chapter 2, or in the rest of the book. The confusion does not stop there." Perhaps a '''NPOV''' article on ''the book'' may be worthwhile, making this notion (if we can call it that) a redirect. But extracting the snippets of that book in an article written in "Wikipedia's voice", never mind the unsupported introductory stuff (because it misses the codebook needed to parse the rest) is really promotional of crap squared (how's that for Maths envy?) or plain gibberish
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:AGF)

Comment: While possibly a |fringe theory, it appears to be a |notable one to judge from these Google http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Newtonian+time%22+economics+O%27Driscoll+Rizzo Scholar and http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Newtonian+time%22+economics+O%27Driscoll+Rizzo Books searches, so rather than deleting, it needs |improving to include criticisms of the idea or the terminology (e.g. from the 'strongly negative' review of the book in ''The Review of Austrian Economics'' {{doi|10.1007/BF01539340}}: "''It would have been better, I think, to refer to the static uses of time as "neoclassical time" rather than "Newtonian time;' for the latter suggests that more is at stake than the misuse of time in economic analysis. But that is a quibble. The last subsection of their discussion of Newtonian time, "The Measurement of Time" (pp. 58-59), is dressed up in mathematical garb and is very difficult to understand;''" (p195)). Personally I have serious doubts about including the article in Template:Time topics|the 'Time topics' navbox though, especially in its present state
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:fringe||WP:notable)