Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion theory(2)


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Expansion theory
Original research. Note that a page with this name was already deleted; see its AfD page. Delete. Chick Bowen 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this significantly the same as the old version? If it is, then it can be speedy deleted. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, it appears significantly different than past versions enough that were I asked, I'd say it is not a speedy candidate. No vote personally. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I nominated the old article for deletion because it was being maintained as an ad for somebody's self-published book.  This is in its early stages and lacks references, but seems in form at least to be an attempt to provide the historical account that I hoped would materialise, once the old article was deleted.  Good start, I see no original research. --Tony Sidaway Talk  18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's true that I don't think this is by the same author as the earlier article. I still think it's original research.  The first sentence is a tipoff, but the main problem seems to me to be that what brings everything the article covers together is only the author's POV that none of it is convincing.  So while I appreciate your relief, Tony, that this is better than what was here before, I believe this one should be deleted for the same reason the other one was: i.e., a truly encylopedic article is more likely to be written from scratch.  Please note that this is not my field--I'm responding to the article's tone and structure, which I believe are fundamentally flawed, rather than my own point of view on the subject. Chick Bowen 21:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Keep the Hilgenberg part only. The cosmology part is original research or a very bad and heterodox re-phrasing of stuff better explained in our Category:Cosmology articles. Small wonder, that no references are given. --Pjacobi 19:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pjacobi is exactly right. Tony, you might wish to reconsider your vote, since keeping bad content like this when there is a better existing alternative is poor practice and detracts from WP as a whole. Delete. Dottore So 19:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A total piece of crap, and an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Quale 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is better covered in other articles. --Carnildo 21:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.  original research combined with materials covered elsewhere Salsb 01:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It may be better veiled than the last version, but that doesn't excuse its flaws (per Chick Bowen, Pjacobi, Carnildo, and Salsb). -Throbblefoot 04:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete "The theorist is forced to re-explain almost all of physics..." Perhaps this should not be done in an Wikipedia Article. -- Andy.we 07:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete & Protect from Creation: OR, article on same subject already deleted. Wikibofh 16:24, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.