Deletion of Dynamic Universe

Comment: If not a vanity or OR issue the article is not notable and also misleading. It is not notable: there are a lot of 'crackpot' theories on the net, as this theory claims to be an alternative to GR and QM it would only become notable and differentiated from 'crackpot theory' if published in accepted peer reviewed journals (|reliably sourced ) at the very least. This theory has not been. Furthermore the article title could be misleading as the phrase "dynamic universe" is used in cosmology to refer either to the standard Friedmann expanding, non-static universe ('dynamic' as opposed to 'static') or, more recently, in brane theory, to refer to the dynamical motion of 'branes', or individual universes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Whether esoterically interesting or not, it ultimately fails  A7
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Researching this, I found circumstantial evidence that the user creating this article is definitely not the theory's author (same username is used in other forums, and if it ''is'' the author, the act is uncannily good), although the user is clearly an adherent. So, for me, / are not an issue here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:VAIN)

Comment: per above. The actual technical merit is not the issue. The criteria for inclusion are: is it |notable (no, IMO), and is it |reliably sourced per neutral 3rd party evaluators (no, IMO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)