Deletion of Clockwork universe theory

Comment: The paradigm of the clockwork universe has been a notable topic of philosophical discourse since the time of Isaac Newton.  A Google Books search on the phrase "clockwork universe" turns up several thousand results.  The article already contains over two dozen references, many of which qualify as  and the "Further Reading" notes that an entire book is devoted to the subject (''The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World'').  "Clockwork universe" has even become a notable concept outside its original domain of philosophy and classical mechanics (e.g. http://books.google.ca/books?id=GAzOg4eQl2YC&pg=PA89 The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy).  The article readily satisfies  and the topic is sufficiently distinct from both Determinism and Mechanism (philosophy) that a merge is not required.  Any portions of the article having issues with , , or citations which fail  can be corrected through ordinary editing.  These are all |surmountable problems that do not represent good reasons for deleting the article.  I agree with the nom that there is no Clockwork universe '''''theory''''' per se.  It's more proper to speak of the topic as a paradigm that is based upon a philosophical interpretation of physical science, especially Newton's theory of classical mechanics, than a "theory" in its own right - a word which should be reserved for scientific predictive/explanatory models which have become established through a substantial body of supporting experimental evidence.  So I would support renaming the article to Clockwork universe (which currently redirects to clockwork universe theory
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:NPOV||WP:COATRACK||WP:V||WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: While I agree that the , , , and  issues could be addressed by stubbing the article and moving it to Clockwork universe, I'd like to clarify that no one has actually suggested 1) that Clockwork universe be deleted,  2) that Clockwork universe is not a notable analogy, 3) or that the misapplication of the sources in the Clockwork universe theory article also fail . MA, are you suggesting the subject of the article ''ought'' to be that of ''The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World''? From the http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/books/review/book-review-the-clockwork-universe-by-edward-dolnick.html?_r=0 NY Times review: {{small|"London before the mid-1600s was a general calamity. The streets were full of thieves, murderers and human waste. Death was everywhere: doctors were hapless, adults lived to about age 30, children died like flies. ... This little history begins Edward Dolnick’s “Clockwork Universe,” so the reader might think the book is about the Royal Society and its effects. But the Royal Society is dispatched in the first third of the book, and thereafter, the subject is how the attempt to find the mathematics governing the universe played out in the life of Isaac Newton
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:TITLE||WP:NPOV||WP:COATRACK||WP:V||WP:RS)