Deletion of Cosmological General Relativity

Comment: There could be dozens of relativity theories. Therefore we should not wonder that a notable physicist produced yet another relativity theory. String theory isn't physics yet, it is applied mathematics, as Sylvester James Gates, Jr. said in his TTC course. Both string theory and this theory are untested yet. We could remove creationist rant from the article, so its creationist implications are not the issue. If it is considered fringe, it could pass , and the fact that it is fringe could be spelled out for the reader
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRIND)

Comment: Looking at the list of articles citing the main paper about Cosmological relativity collected by SPIRES http://inspirehep.net/search?ln=en&p=refersto%3Arecid%3A547217, it seems there is a fair body of work on the subject from a group of more or less independent authors taking the theory (somewhat) seriously. There is certainly enough coverage there to satisfy  and . It is certainly not mainstream and quite possibly total BS. However, those are not reason for deletion. Neither is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FRIND||WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I unfortunately do not see a single article in a decent journal. At west , at worst 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:FRINGE)