Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravastar


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Gravastar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entire "theory" is proposed and supported by non-notable physicists Mazur and Mottola (who had their wiki pages speedy removed for being non-notable) and was directly contradicted / proven wrong in 2011 by Professor Hawking. There is absolutely no scientific credibility to the theory, with no notable researchers providing any support. Several of the references were 404 or not substantially related. I might add that I specialize in this field but have no COI. 65.28.108.179 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I logged in to show my history as an experienced wikipedian (RCP with Twinkle since 2008), and to show the lack of COI R3ap3R (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I freely admit that I am not a specialist, and have no idea whether this theory has been disproved. However, 240 mentions on Google Scholar and the several citations in the article to the popular press pass the notability bar for me.  Even a disproved theory may be maintained as an article if academic or popular interest in it is sufficiently wide and well-documented.  I believe that is the case here.  Xoloz (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whether a theory proves false or not or whether it is only supported by "non-notable" (in the Wikipedia sense) is quite irrelevant to whether there should be an article on it. A quick google search already shows that there are easily enough sources to make this topic "notable". --JorisvS (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia does not have an article about every topic with 250 citations in GS. Come back when these are at least ten times larger. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment. It easily meets the general notability guidelines (WP:Notability). 250 or 2500 does not make a difference. --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Massively notable concept, this should not be here at all. I also see book sources here. That the theory is discredited is entirely irrelevant when dealing with notability. I am absolutely baffled by Xxanthippe comment: 250 sources are a huge amount for notability, actually probably more than 90% of our topics, given that just two independent academic sources would be enough to meet WP:GNG. -- cyclopia speak! 14:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep 41 hits for articles (by a variety of authors) on Inspire that have "Gravastar" in the title, means that the topic meets the WP:GNG easily. Whether the idea has been debunked or not is not relevant. (In fact, Hawking think that the idea was relevant enough to debunk only adds to its notability.)TR 14:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - What exactly has been disproved? There is a statement in the article that some prediction about gravastars has been disproved, but without any citation to back it up. has not provided any citations either, and all the sources I could find take gravastars seriously. Not that it would make any difference because the article easily passes GNG. Some of the 404's that he mentioned were easily fixed using the Wayback Machine. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Even simply being wrong wouldn't make it non notable, plenty of things that are wrong are actually extremely notable; the fact that it was published in lots of places and the fact that Hawking looked at it makes it notable. Also, the research may well yet lead to further work.GliderMaven (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2014 (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.