Deletion of Environmental cosmology

Comment: as |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as  I have read the rules on vanity and do not believe this is a vanity article. Other than identifying myself as the author of the book and the concept, this article explains technical details with no more further mention of the author. I can remove my name and the article will not lose anything at all. I don't think the same could be said for vanity articles. What the article (and the book) does do is try to reconcile two very differing points of view. It is critical of both sides and it accepts ideas from both sides that are consistent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:VANITY)

Comment: per .  I'm going to ignore the vanity allegations for a moment because while it is bad form I'm not of the opinion that vanity is always a deletable offense.  Besides in a way it is its own punishment; look at it this way: someone had to create an article about themselves or their work because nobody cared enough about them or their work enough to create a wikipedia article; while there are people out there that care enough about a topic to create BotCon.  That has to sting a little... but back to .  Searching Google I find quite a few references to ''Nature: An Environmental Cosmology'' (1997) by Joseph Grange, a book about the environment.  In fact most of the returned results are for that book.  The term is also used in relation to cosmology and inflationary theory http://www.ishipress.com/cosmos.htm.  The usage of the term in reference to the book and theories by Mr. McRitchie are from his own website, and the book listing on Amazon.  I can't find any information that the term "Environmental cosmology" has been used to refer to McRitchie's theories by any reputable 3rd party source.  If not deleted outright, this should disambiguate to an article on the book at Environmental Cosmology (book) (and other uses of the term) and just have a write up of the book rather than a full explanation of the theory... at least until it can be  proved that these pseudo-scientific theories gain wider acceptance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO||WP:V)