Deletion of Hippocampal theory of consciousness

Comment: I tried to remove some of the  sources, but I'm just not finding appropriate / secondary coverage. None of the seemingly independent secondary sources even use the term. This appears to be promotion by the author of the term (who is much too close to be writing the article) as a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:MEDRS||WP:SCIRS||WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: to Ralf-peter b. May I remind you of the Wikietiquette when contributing to deletion discussions at , specifically 'Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.' and 'Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDEQ)

Comment: 1) The theory is novel and as a tertiary source, Wikipedia should be careful with adding novel theories that have not (yet) gained mainstream recognition. (2) There is a lack of scientific papers endorsing the theory. This may be due to the newness of the theory, or because the theory has severe problems. We cannot know at this moment in time and therefore should not publish on the theory for now (but I think labelling this is fringe theory () is too harsh, (3) The introduction of the theory by a main author in the field does indeed cause conflict of interest concerns  (and has some element of self promotion - see romo). The case that the theory were indeed notable and important would be much better made by an editor with no relation whatsoever to Ralf Peter Behrendt. Altogether I see an article that does little harm in itself but also adds little to nothing in the current form
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:COI||WP:P)

Comment: per nom. It's very clear that this is  of one person's theory by that one person, and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. My previous suggestion of a merge to :Consciousness has been met with some reasonable objections, and I now think that deletion is the better option. That should of course not prevent any non-connected editor from including referenced discussion of this theory in existing pages according to the  that it merits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:promotion||WP:weight)