Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Steady State Universe Theory


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic Steady State Universe Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * ( and

Contested PROD. Non-notable fringe theory. I can't see any peer-reviewed journal article discussing this theory. Salih ( talk ) 18:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Comment: Would it be reasonable to suggest that the Dynamic Steady State Universe Theory (The cellular universe) is, in respect of Fringe theories, an "Alternative theoretical formulation" which "tweaks things on the frontiers of science"? -- Senra (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is kept, the copy/paste move from User:Harryflatters/sandbox will need to be fixed. Ryan Vesey 18:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking straight when I did the copy/paste move. Can an admin help me move it from User:Harryflatters/sandbox to Dynamic Steady State Universe Theory please? —  Ross coolguy CVU &#124;  My Talk  18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Already done. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was prior discussion of this some years ago, and Conrad Ranzan's own arguments, that this was presented at a conference in 2002, can still be seen at User:Ranzan. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be reasonable; but that is only to say that it is not "pseudoscience". It still has to pass the notability and no original research tests. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC). JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge --> Big Bang or Standard_Model @Mark Viking: agrees this theory is at the fringe (see my comment above) and also says this article discusses one alternative to the Big Bang hypothesis, so merge it -- Senra (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- falls way below the notability level at which a theory would merits its own article. a13ean (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I found one peer reviewed paper, which serves as a primary source, but could find no reliable secondary sources discussing the theory. As such, it falls below threshold for notability. I think this qualifies as a fringe theory of cosmology (see WP:FRINGE), in that (1) it is an alternative to the big bang hypothesis and associated lambda CDM model that is the current mainstream theory these days and (2) it has few adherents. Mark viking (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, at this point this is a non-notable fringe theory.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. — Ed! (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ranzan's argument, linked by Uncle G, is that the theory was presented at a conference in 2002, and so the lapse of time means that it is no longer "original research"; but passing time alone is not enough, what is needed is evidence of independent discussion and comment on the theory. The relevant sentence from WP:NOR is: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: this article fails the notability guidelines. The only non-primary coverage I could find myself was the non reliable source Marmet (2013) . The article is not original unpublished research in the Wikipedia sense because, whilst all known sources are primary sources (e.g. DSSU Relativity —The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space. Physics Essays Vol 23, No.3, p 520 (2010), the original research policy does not prohibit such sources. The policy actually states: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Incidentally, I wrote to off-wiki via cellularuniverse.org asking "Has the [DSSU] theory received any coverage (positive or negative) in any peer reviewed journal, book or news article by any authors other than Conrad Ranzan?". The reply did not contain any links to any such coverage other than Ranzan's own papers or web site. If I get a reply to my further request to Ranzan I may change my view -- Senra (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FRINGE. Non notable. PianoDan (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (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.