Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant GRB Ring

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. If an editor would like to userfy it to their user space it may be done at WP:REFUND. Mkdw ^talk 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giant GRB Ring

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is based on the claims of a single group, WP:PRIMARY sourced from arXiv. The authors look rather likely to be closely involved. I see little evidence of any currency for this term, which gets exactly seven Google hits - at best it's WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no possibility of good sourcing when the only things available are the paper itself and the press release issued by the journal [1]. --Amble (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, note that the paper is in MNRAS, and the arxiv version is only linked for convenience. Still no independent sourcing possible. --Amble (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one source published about this GRB ring (hence original research and WP:NOR.) When there are multiple, reliable sources to verify the article may be recreated. --189.106.231.36 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are many multiple, reliable sources:

There are many more. Astroplanet (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, those all track back to one source. That's why it gets so few Google hits. You're engaged in trying to use Wikipedia popularise a novel idea, and that is always a problem here. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong! I do not try such thing. None of them referring the wikipedia. Most of them using the Royal Astronomical Society press release as a source.

You might use another Google. Mine gives several hundred thousand hits ;-) Astroplanet (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they were referring to Wikipedia. Your search probably was not quoted, the proper search is "Giant GRB ring" quoted. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! OK. But why search Giant GRB ring? I do not care what is the enwiki article name. Search "Large GRB Ring" (210 000). I search GRB ring Balazs (25 000) and also "GRB"+"Ring"+"balazs" (17 000). I hope we are discussing, not fighting. Astroplanet (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the source is at arXiv, note that it is only a repository/archive and is awaiting for peer-review. If it passes, then it will be published in a scientific journal, if not, it will be scrapped. The process can take months, if it passes. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in MNRAS, which is peer reviewed. That's still not enough to establish adequate sourcing or notability. --Amble (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can delete any article. However, for big GRB ring or huge or giant GRB ring one can get many hits on the web. If somebody wants to read about it why not from the wikipedia?

I believe we agree there are many reliable sources. I do not agree with Amble, that the subject is not notable. "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources" I already listed above some sources. There are other sources which do not reefer the original article nor the MNRAS, and even this week there are new pages about the GRB ring:

also there are essays about the structure of the Universe which include the ring.

For example: http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/cosmos-structure2.htm Also this page collected many other sources.

Therefore, I am still suggesting to keep it. Astroplanet (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "have found what appears to be" is what killed it for me - one group of researchers think they found something, but with no other corroboration it's just a theory. Everything is directly related to either the paper itself or the RAS press release. The Discovery article is the only one that didn't just copy/paste it verbatim on their own pages (though the majority of the information is identical). Fails NASTRO and is definitely TOOSOON. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. See http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/cosmos-structure2.htm Astroplanet (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single paper, nobody citing it (yet), single-issue editors weighing in. Come back in a year, maybe it will be notable, more likely it will join a long line of anisotropy papers fading from memory. Lithopsian (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate either userfy or move to DRAFTspace -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2015 (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.

Giant GRB Ring

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.