Deletion of Association induction hypothesis

Comment: per . Wikipedia has an article about flat Earth, so being fringe isn't a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRIND)

Comment: This is a very clear case of . Although the quantity is impressive, the exposition describes one outlandish idea after the other, the most clearly wrong of which is this one: "Although much extracellular sodium ion and water molecules diffuse in and out of the cell, no energy is required for the exchange. In theory, the cell could hold these asymmetrical concentrations forever without using energy." In my view, violations of the second law of thermodynamics should do automatically qualify anything for FRINGE per an explicit example in /PS. I should also add that I have found no sources that would qualify this for , but given the amount that has been written about the subject by its primary proponent, I would not be surprised if such sources existed. Even if they did, though, the article that could be written on this subject would be vastly different from the present one, which promotes the theory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:FRINGE||WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: as non-notable . -- Special:Contributions/120.17.113.201|120.17.113.201
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: as |nonsense.  We are an encyclopedia, |not a web host for every failed theory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BULLOCKS||WP:NOTWEBHOST)

Comment: as notable . With regards Fringe Theory Notability as described below I thought I have already addressed the same issues raised above in the Articles Talk page, in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_induction_hypothesis#Comments_Relating_to_reverts_from_Red_Pen_of_doom. Please read the extended content carefully and come back with what I am failing to show
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)