Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assis, Armando V.D.B. On the Cold Big Bang Cosmology. Progress in Physics, 2011, v. 2, 58-63.


 * 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 per various and obvious reasons listed below. Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Assis, Armando V.D.B. On the Cold Big Bang Cosmology. Progress in Physics, 2011, v. 2, 58-63.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A citation of a six-page portion of the entire book. Reference is (of course) the book itself. E Wing (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional note: Wikipedia is not a repository of links. E Wing (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete An article on a single article in a scientific journal? I see no evidence that this six page article is sufficiently notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I declined the latest speedy (it's been speedy deleted twice so far) because I could see context (but not understand the maths...) and it wasn't short. The same author has created Cold Big Bang, which I consider a valuable article as there is no mention I can find of Cold Big Bang theory in Big Bang. It could do to have more references than the one it has - the publication which is the subject of this article - which perhaps indicates a certain bias. The topic is discussed in scientific circles, and I've added another link into the CBB article. This article, however, I feel is not necessary as anyone looking for Cold Big Bang won't be coming in via this title, and they can access the Progress in Physics article via CBB anyway. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete With respect, this Wikipedia article is not, respectfully, on a single article in a scentific journal, it is on the specialized subject within the article, its on how the author reaches this controversial result. The source is extremely difficult to follow for the layman. Assuming information is important to the reader, important to scholar research, college reasearch, remembering the subject is on the Big Bang, an extremely controversial and important scientific subject. The fact that this article seems to be "a single article in a scentific journal" follows from the simple fact: we do not find over the internet an article with such detailed calculation obtaining the same results the article claims. The cosmic background temperature 2.7 K is teoretically derived, the Dark Energy seems to be putted on physical grounds as a quantum effect, a quantum cosmological effect for instance, and so on. I am not saying the author is correct, I am saying this result within the article is importamt enough to be informed, to be opened to the people, I think, within the Wiki under encyclopedical terms. I worked hard for two days to open the calculations. As you may verify, I explicitely putted INCOMPLETE within my edition tags, when I created the article. Surelly, the article must be improved and I am working it, but, as I said, some concepts within the article are hard to follow. Carolingfield (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With that title on the article I don't know how we were to draw any conclusion other than that it was about this article.You even specified the page numbers. If this is an obscure scientific concept that most people are never going to hear about, let alone understand, it is probably not notable enough for its own entry. At the very least the title has got to be changed. More importanly though, if you want an article on this subject you need to provide sources that discuss the subject. As it is written now it is bascialy an abstract (sort of) explaining what is in this article, using only the article itself as a source. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The title is the name of the object being explained. The object of the Wikipedia article in question is the article. Why Should I put another name? What about a Shakespeare book? Should I put another name on this subject? Is it an encyclopedical object? We write about the book, materially, or about the content? Respectfully, Carolingfield (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do write articles about certain books, but those are about the whole book, not an excerpt thereof. Also, the author itself is not notable. For the author's claim to be notable, there must have another source supporting his arguments. E Wing (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is some substance to this, merge without a redirect to whichever article most directly covers this part of the field. Otherwise, delete. bd2412  T 19:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title of this Wikipedia article indicates that it is supposed to be about Assis's article which appeared on pages 58 to 63 of Progress in Physics -- not about the underlying topic of the "cold big bang". No indication has been given that the article itself is notable (as opposed to the underlying topic being notable). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete This is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.194.242 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete Valuable font. We knew from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.76.230 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete Brilliant work from Assis. Should be encyclopedic. We got it from here, specially from the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.71.86 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment obvious IP Socks are obvious. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  20:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "brilliant work" from a non-notable author doesn't count. E Wing (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete Eu quero que fique. O pessoal da universidade acessa por aqui. I wanna saty. Guys from here the university dowloaded from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.195.178 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete Henrique, Cláudia, Paulo and Carol - It's a extremely important and difficult to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.64 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete Please do not delete this article - Alex, Fidélio, Castro e Carol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.195.178 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete please do not delete this article-jade  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.214.80 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete I'm here beclause i want. There are some people here. I think Wikipedia is free, no? So I VOTE NO BECAUSE I WANT, Politely. Yung Son Ja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.195.178 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No way in hell that this passes the general notability guideline. Single publication in a fringe journal.TR 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per same reasons as other editors above. IP sock definitely in use above. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  21:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, Mrs. milonica, what is ip soks? Is this some configuration i must do regarding my count? Internet says it is some cel phone connection via notebookm something related to internet connection, but sorry, i am not an expert in the subject.Carolingfield (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that if you look at the evidence above, those who are saying "do not delete" appear to be the same person using different IP addresses. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  22:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No! It sounds i am a persona non grata, hence, if you want (I mean Wiki), i close my account. Is it? Carolingfield (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah. It could be just some meatpuppeting by different IP accounts under a common denominator (students under the same class perhaps?). E Wing (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note - this is NOT a vote by numbers. It is a discussion where we put our opinion (delete, keep, redirect, etc) in bold and then say something relevant as to why we think that. Whenever there is a great flood of IPs (anonymous posters) or SPAs (accounts created to vote here and nowhere else), their posts are usually ignored by the adnministrator who closes the discussion. Sock is short for sockpuppet, which is comparing posters to little puppets controlled by one person. This is not allowed on Wikipedia in these discussions, and when it is investigated it can mean someone will get blocked from editing. If anyone wants to make remarks after they have given their main post (like I have done), they should put 'comment'. Please note also that floods of new posters in one of these discussions tends to increase the opinion the opposite way from the way they want. In other words, it doesn't work. Believe me - I take part in a lot of these discussions, and as an admin sometimes close them. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Carolingfield, you have made a valuable contribution to Wikipedia by putting up the article Cold Big Bang. That can grow into a really good article. This one can't. It doesn't fit the sort of article we have here. You can probably make more articles that do fit, and use your knowledge to help edit other ones. We do not want to put people off from editing. But you must remember that not everything does fit here. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got colleagues researching over here, and I sent an e-mail the page would be deleted. I am alone here. I went out to eat (very hungry). Carolingfield (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So am I - I'm just starting my evening meal at midnight (my time). We don't mind people posting in these discussions so long as they say something of value and don't try to pretend they found this by accident. We do know the difference. To keep this article, they will have to show how it does fit Wikipedia. Not how they think Wikipedia should be, but how it is. The people here who have said 'delete' are all experienced editors - people who know the rules and who don't like to lose an article that belongs. But we know when one doesn't belong. It is easy for someone who looks things up on Wikipedia not to know how it works underneath - just as you can drive a car without knowing how the engine works. But you must know not to put petrol in a diesel car... Peridon (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank You. All of you are incredible and valuable people, augmenting the knowledge. Contributing to this terrific Encyclopedia. I will try to learn more.Carolingfield (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.77.188 (talk)


 * Delete The journal about which the article is written is purely not notable by any means. This article also fails WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOT PAPERS).  Wikipedia is not a collection of papers or a place to summarize publications from academic journals.  Any editors need to start providing strong arguments if they truly believe that this article should be kept.  Statements such as "I like it", "It does no harm", "It's useful", etc. do not constitute as valid points and are considered "arguments with out arguments"  – Dream out loud  (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.