Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic evolution


 * 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   redirect to Physical cosmology. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic evolution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable Fashionslide (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic Evolution is the title of a 2002 new-age/religious book by Eric Chaisson, an astrophysicist at Tufts, where he is director of the Wright Center for Science Education. User User:Wrightcenter, who appears to be affiliated with Chaisson's Wright Center, has participated in editing the article and in defending it on its talk page. The article presents cosmic evolution as "the scientific study of universal change," but cosmic evolution is not a recognized or widely discussed scientific theory, it is an attempt at a spiritual synthesis with input from science. Chaisson does not describe it as a scientific theory. He describes its purpose as "to sketch a grand evolutionary synthesis that would better enable us to understand who we are, whence we came, and how we fit into the overall scheme of things." The article attempts to puff up the ideas in Chaisson's book into a scientific theory, and into one that is widely discussed, by giving a long list of references. Nearly all of these references are to books that came out before Chaisson coined the phrase "cosmic evolution" in his 2002 book. For example, there is a reference to the 1980 popular science book Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, who died six years before Chaisson published his book. There are references to a long list of new-age/religious books by Frederick Turner, most of them predating Chaisson's. The body of the article also freely invokes the authority of various academics as supporters for cosmic evolution, without citing any verifiable source to show that those people consider themselves supporters. For example: "The emergentist psychology of Clare Graves, which sees the human mind and societies as co-emerging into more complex levels, also fits well into the cosmic evolution paradigm." Although Chaisson's book has been reviewed favorably by noted scientists such as G.F.R. Ellis and E.O. Wilson, (a) they reviewed it as religion and philosophy, not as science, and (b) a favorably reviewed book is still just a book, not a notable field of scientific study in its own right. --Fashionslide (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply redirect to Physical cosmology, which is the scientific field that studies the evolution of the cosmos. The present article is largely an unsalvageable and incoherent amalgam of OR and NN pseudoscientific drivel. --Lambiam 21:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Lambiam. Salt if needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirecting makes sense to me.--Fashionslide (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current article is a confusing read and largely unsupported. I could find nothing salvageable in the current article, but if other editors think the article history might prove useful then a simple redirect would be fine. Timeline of the Big Bang is the article I was expecting, and I think would make a better redirect target. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Big Bang is just one (although the leading) theory of cosmic evolution, and therefore redirecting to the Timeline article implies Wikipedia has a preference for that specific theory; in that respect Physical cosmology is more neutral. While I don't particularly care for the article history, it is harmless, and "cosmic evolution" is a plausible search term. --Lambiam 09:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note proclaimed itself to be a role account, and I have blocked it indefinitely. Please keep an eye out for new individual accounts registered by the people who controlled that account and be careful to be especially welcoming of them. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The account had no registered activities for over two years anyway, so any individuals who used it have either become inactive or started using other accounts. --Lambiam 09:37, 21 June 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.