Deletion of Non-Newtonian calculus

Comment: the Talk page comments also appear here http://non-newtoniancalculus.books.officelive.com/sitemap.aspx. The Talk page comments make clear the  issue, as '''smithpith''' who created and has primarily edited the article is identified as Michael Grossman. I have "The Rainbow of Math." to hand. On pg. 332 is a footnote mentioning Grossman and Katz 1972 as having developed on a 1754 comment by Besicovitch. But pg. 774 is in the Bibliography and is just the actual citation for Grossman and Katz 1972. This is only one reference to Grossman and Katz in a footnote plus its Bib. entry. The terms "non-Newtonian" and "bigeometric" do not appear in the footnote; the former is in the book title in the Bib. I still feel this is one person pushing his somewhat -y theory (correct, I'm sure, but far off the mainstream). Which of the Grossman books is from a reputable, non-vanity press? I don't think policy is that every technical term used in a journal or book merits a page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: I'm glad this has come up for deletion because ironically the topic has thereby caught my attention. This topic has been referred to in a mathematical journal, so it's notable enough as far as I'm concerned. So what if this is a "what if?" kind of thing? The usefulness remains to be seen, but wikipedia is not just for practical information. The word 'fringe-y' theory is mentioned above but the word fringe describes theories held by a small minority which contradict widely accepted theories and are thus rejected, however that is not the case here. This does not contradict anything, it is simply not widely known about. The word fringe does not apply. There may be a so-called COI, but really that just means the article should be subjected to close scrutiny. It is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia would be a very much poorer place if articles like this are deleted. The fact that it has been referred to in a journal means that  does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Since when was  a reason for deleting an article? Okay, it ''is'' a reason for impartial editors to remove promotional and/or non-encyclopedic information from the article with extreme prejudice, but as long as the subject meets , we don't delete the article itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NOTABILITY)