Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banded speed cosmology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Banded speed cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like WP:OR and seems a little bit promotional. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The following was posted to the article page by Camellia Plant (talk · contribs) (diff):
<!-- Answers to other editors. Answers supporting objection to deletion. Invisible text added by Camellia_Plant Answers to Jackmcbarn: "Looks like WP:OR". A: It is not Original Research. Three peer-reviewed sources are correctly cited. "and seems a little bit promotional". A: This assumption must be demonstrated. Answers to Phil Bridger: "The cited articles were published by a well-known predatory publisher." A: Only a personal opinion. Official Court decisions must be cited for demonstrating this assumption. "Why do supposedly intelligent academics fall for such scams?" A: Only a personal opinion. Besides contributions on Wikipedia should be polite and should be based on technical reasoning and not personal opinions. "And why do universities not warn them that publishing in such a journal is career suicide?" A: Academic politics it is totally irrelevant on Wikipedia. Besides careers belong to the single persons and Wikipedia editors should not be worried about them. -->
- Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is a lack of third party reliable sources describing this work, (e.g. newspapers, books, science mags. etc.). There is also a lack of material published in journal by people other than the authors concerned, i.e. the theory has not been taken up by the wider scientific community. WP:FRINGE applies here. wrt to the science (this is probably the wrong place), if I understand their theory correctly, then these three electrical engineers seem to have missed a key point of relativity in that there is no absolute frame of reference.Martin451 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:FRINGE idea not appearing in reliable sources. -- 119.225.135.178 (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The three so-called "peer reviewed" sources cited by the article are published in a questionable open access journal known as the Journal of physical science and application (which is listed as such here and is even called a scam here). Moreover, this journal has only one worldcat holding. Apart from being primary sources (rather than secondary sources as specifically required by the WP:NOR policy), these sources don't even pass the WP:RS smell test. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to respond to this edit (which was removed because of WP:DUCK) wherein it is insinuated that the journal is in fact a quality journal despite my evidence to the contrary. Remarkably, while my evidence was called in to question for essentially ad hominem reasons, no positive evidence for the credibility of this source was offered. It is a fact that there are many open access journals that publish essentially anything submitted with minimal peer review (assuming they get their open access fees). These are so-called "predatory open access journals". It is also a fact that David Publishing, the publisher of this journal, is listed in Beall's list (which is widely regarded in academia as a definitive listing of predatory open access publishers): [1]. The total lack of library holdings of this particular journal also makes it very suspect. Finally, there is this abstract published by this so-called "peer reviewed" journal. Can anyone reading that abstract honestly think that anything published in this journal is a reliable source for physics? Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of the reliable secondary sources needed to pass WP:GNG. The existing sources are neither reliable (per Sławomir Biały) nor secondary, and even if they were published in a more reputable journal I'd want to see multiple independent groups working on the subject before having an article here about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that i'm new to wikipedia and i don't know all the rules about science pages, but i don't understand some points:
- 1. why all the answers objecting the proposal of delete have disappeared;
- 2. why should be important the professional career of the paper's authors for the page in question.
- 3. it seems that there isn't any technical motivation in favor of the deletion of the page, only "politics".
- 4. the main objective of an encyclopedia should be to report the facts of the world without filters and don't make appear the facts more or less notable than they are.
- 5. the first paper cited in this page appear published in a congress and this should demonstrate that the theory is being accepted by a wider scientific community and even there, to my knowledge, the given criticisms have always been more political or formal than substantive.
- 6. even if this theory will be disproved, an encyclopedia should report the failed attempts by the spirit of information. -—Cellomac (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. It is a direct violation of WP:SOCK to use different accounts during a deletion discussion, as it gives the illusion of more support for one point of view. Postings by sockpuppet accounts have been removed. 2. I don't think it is important. What's important is the lack of any reliable secondary sources on the subject. 3. Our purpose here isn't to evaluate the merits of the theory. We have articles on many so-called "theories" which are known to be completely bogus on technical grounds, but there exist secondary sources saying as much about such theories: see WP:FRINGE. The technical aspects are not very relevant to the AfD process. 4. We aren't a compendium of everything. We can only report what is consistent with our WP:PILLARS. In this case, that means that we cannot report original research that is sourced only to primary sources (primary sources, moreover, that do not seem to have a reputation for much peer review: see my post above). We demand independent secondary sources (in the sciences that usually means peer reviewed secondary sources). 5. If "the theory is being accepted by a wider scientific community", then that requires evidence. Are there independent secondary sources (published in a reliable place) that discuss the theory? 6. If the theory were to be disproven, then that would actually be a point in favor of including a discussion of it in the encyclopedia, as it would imply that the theory is notable. But if no one other than the originators of the theory has taken note of it, then it is obviously not notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying to Cellomac. 5. Just because a paper has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, does not mean it has been accepted by the wider scientific community, even the person/people reviewing it might disagree with the conclusions. 6. There are millions of papers published a year, thousands of new theories. Many new theories are just that, we do not need an article on every new theory, and if wikipedia fills up with WP:FRINGE theories, it will be difficult to find the commonly accepted, or massively disproved ones, which is why wikipedia only has articles about theories once they have been discussed by people other than the authors.Martin451 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. It is a direct violation of WP:SOCK to use different accounts during a deletion discussion, as it gives the illusion of more support for one point of view. Postings by sockpuppet accounts have been removed. 2. I don't think it is important. What's important is the lack of any reliable secondary sources on the subject. 3. Our purpose here isn't to evaluate the merits of the theory. We have articles on many so-called "theories" which are known to be completely bogus on technical grounds, but there exist secondary sources saying as much about such theories: see WP:FRINGE. The technical aspects are not very relevant to the AfD process. 4. We aren't a compendium of everything. We can only report what is consistent with our WP:PILLARS. In this case, that means that we cannot report original research that is sourced only to primary sources (primary sources, moreover, that do not seem to have a reputation for much peer review: see my post above). We demand independent secondary sources (in the sciences that usually means peer reviewed secondary sources). 5. If "the theory is being accepted by a wider scientific community", then that requires evidence. Are there independent secondary sources (published in a reliable place) that discuss the theory? 6. If the theory were to be disproven, then that would actually be a point in favor of including a discussion of it in the encyclopedia, as it would imply that the theory is notable. But if no one other than the originators of the theory has taken note of it, then it is obviously not notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.