Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daemon (astrophysics)


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Daemon (astrophysics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

All sources are to one author, which calls the credibility of this article (and the hypothesis behind it) into question. notability is dubious too, and the creator is essentially a single-purpose account. This looks like fringe science to me, especially given that Planck-sized black holes like those mentioned here are usually believed to be highly unstable (due to Hawking radiation), not "eternally living" as claimed here. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Do either of those sources even count as reliable sources in any event? At best, they're primary sources, and at worse are less than that.  I'm not wholly familiar with astrophysics publishing practices, but I thought that "Letters" articles in most fields aren't considered to be fully peer-reviewed.  The other source is to an Invited Talk, which again, often doesn't rise to the full level of peer review we'd like for a Wikipedia science source.  To me this looks like a non-notable scientific idea that could possibly be covered in brief in another article, if at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I considered nominating this article myself, but nominated the related article on Edward Drobyshevski (the author of this theory) instead. This concept is not remotely notable as the papers are rarely cited by anyone other than the author.  Furthermore, they are not published in a peer reviewed journal, but rather on arxiv, which lets anyone publish if they are at an academic institution.  I found this article myself after reading one of the papers and trying to figure out if it was a fringe idea.  I think I can now confidently state that to be the case.  Sailsbystars (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The second cited paper was published in Modern Physics Letters A, and the first paper (albeit that one wouldn't know it from the citation after all of the relevant information was removed from it) was a conference paper at DARK 2007. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but conference papers are not peer reviewed, therefore such papers don't "count" as published papers. This guy has one published paper on the subject and and several unpublished papers. Actually, it looks like a decent number have been published in MPLA, but the citation count clearly shows the subject to be non-notable.  The one published paper is only cited by the author himself .  Lastly, published scientific papers do not rise to the level of notability unless they are covered in the media, which these are not.  On an unrelated note, I think I know enough about the subject now that I can explain why the theory is fringe, if anyone is interested.  Sailsbystars (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;There is one paper on the same subject with authors other than EM Drobyshevskia, and Drobyshevski's works do get cited by other authors. I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether it is pushing the envelope fringe or over the edge fringe. So I'm neutral.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cite count for the article in question . 12 cites by the authors, 3 cites by others.  Definitely not enough to qualify as notable.  For an example of what a notable paper looks like, check out the cites for the groundbreaking paper of Marcy and Butler, reporting one of the first extra-solar planets . Sailsbystars (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Even ignoring the Fringe issues with the article, it just doesn't rise to the level of notable. There are dozens of astronomy papers published every day proposing new theories.  Heavy citation or media coverage is required for a scientific paper or series of scientific papers to be notable.  Sailsbystars (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on sources Astronomical and astrophysical transactions is a peer reviewed journal. How rigorous the peer review is likely to be another matter.It is a very minor journal, not included in either Journal Citation Reports or Scopus. Princeton cancelled its subscription years ago, & it's a field in which we collect very intensively.   Modern Physics Letters is a fairly low quality journal also,  but at least it is in JCR, (by the way,  "Letters" in physics journals is not a sign of lack of quality or peer review. --Physical review letters is the highest quality physics journal in the world.  ) DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the concept has to have some significant degree of citation from other people, and it does not.    DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (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.