Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black hole cosmology


 * 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   keep. Per WP:SNOW. After the article was rewritten, it appears that WP:HEY now applies. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Black hole cosmology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. The article goes against WP:NOTESSAY and is composed of mainly original research – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With the rewrite, I am now more than willing to keep this article. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, probably WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE...ai yi yi... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that this was quite an interesting topic, and should either be kept or merged and redirected to either black holes or cosmology. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it's not WP:OR and WP:ESSAY? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By my reading, Aceo isn't saying anything about the article content. It appears to be a comment about the topic, which I agree is interesting. Certainly a redirect would mean deleting the content. I think the merge proposal is highly problematic. Joja  lozzo  20:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The keep proposal is highly problematic, too, unless someone does a substantial rewrite. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. I skimmed over that little word. Joja  lozzo  00:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Bushranger. Not encyclopedic. I suggest starting over with a basic stub and enlisting experienced collaborators to help make it an encyclopedic article rather than one editor's project. (see below) Joja  lozzo  19:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have said, per WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I agree the article needs to be completely rewritten, both for clarity and for a neutral point-of-view, the topic is notable and the references given are serious and reliable sources. --Lambiam 22:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support paring it back to a lead sentence stub so we keep the topic, but I think the content that we have now is an inappropriate starting point. Joja  lozzo  00:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just replaced the old text by an entirely fresh new stub. --Lambiam 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * However, an anon (presumably the same as the original creator, who has a COI) has now appended the whole old rambling essay to that stub. It may indeed be better then to delete the whole thing. --Lambiam 14:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as stub per Lambiam. It is indeed a notable topic, and reliable sources exist. Polyamorph (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Given the rewrite has been done, and topic is notable, then we should keep the article, and ensure that mess of crap doesn't get appended again. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect - This topic seems to be covered by third-party sources. Is it worthy of its own article? Perhaps not, but we could merge it into a new section on black hole or another related page and redirect to said section. Chris (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Excellent rewrite. The topic is notable enough to deserve its own article. Regarding merges, that could be discussed through a merge proposal instead. → Σ  τ  c . 03:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a properly stubbed article on a notable topic. I wish it well. Joja  lozzo  15:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's not mainstream, but it is notable science. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 17 October 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.