Deletion of Self creation cosmology

Comment: Re: waiting until April 2007, as suggested above by Garthbarber: a (hypothetical) article X about an unnotable topic that then asked us to wait until the topic became verifiably notable at some future time would probably fail #Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I interpret WP policy as "delete until it really is notable" in such cases, not "wait and see
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: and maybe tag for cleanup (NPOV). I have been tracking this discussion, and a thematically similar one above for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_23#Dynamic_Universe|Dynamic Universe. Writing about your own research on WP is considered a bad idea, but this topic seems to merit a presence on WP in terms of notability, its NPOV aspect needs work but that isn't grounds for deletion. Original research that, e.g., proposes that the universe was created by a goblin, is probably the target of  A3, rather than this. Assuming the maths are correct, I don't think it's possible to write biased equations. The article could benefit from more exposition on its significance for non-math-heads
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: It has enough of a non-arxiv paper trail to at least deserve mention. Wikipedia is |not paper. The article itself seems tolerable to me as far as neutality, as it's careful to describe SCC as an unconfirmed model, as opposed to established fact. Helpful elements would be the addition of a criticism/reception section providing a neutral sample of responses to the SCC papers, and modification of the reference list so that, in addition to papers by other parties, only the most important papers of the author's are listed (full publications list can be linked off-site, as I'm sure the author has a list hosted somewhere
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I have been aware of this for some time and have expressed concern about the "conflict of interest" inherent in Garth writing about his own research.  I haven't mustered interest/time/energy to get hold of original sources and study them so I can form my own opinion about whether his description violates , but I do have the superficial impression that he has been well-behaved (e.g. not spamming other articles) and don't recall noticing anything which suggested to me that he is editing in bad faith or anything like that.  Still, I'd be a lot happier of someone was willing to take the time to look more carefully than I have into this.  I also wish I had the sense that Garth is going to declare the article complete at some point.  FWIW, I think the outcome should of this AfD should probably be reported as ''inconclusive'', reserving the right to nominate it again without prejudice if problems should develop (which I hope won't happen since we have enough trouble from other quarters in the physics/cosmology categories
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)