Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents


 * 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE violation. No independent sources that I know of make this kind of demarcation of who is a "dissident". jps (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'd suggest nominating the stub articles that have been listed for deletion as well, like what happened with Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Perhaps you could speedy this article under an A1 or even an A3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerospeed (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As violation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH inherent to these type of list articles without a source showing this list is notable. Yobol (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Calling people "dissidents" without sources sounds like a WP:BLP violation. I see no evidence of notability, but plenty of evidence that the creator of this article aims to promote his own fringe views (Just read their userpage: User:Wavyinfinity). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the basis of continued POV pushing of clear pseudoscience etc by this editor, evidenced by this article creation and others, I have filed an arbitration enforcement request: WP:AE. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * delete nothing from here is salvageable into any type of semi related article that might be created that would actually fall within encyclopedic parameters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The word "dissident" in the title is already POV, insinuating that the individuals are persecuted for their beliefs by the jackbooted brownshirts of the authoritarian regime.  Also the qualities of the listed individuals, and their views on cosmology, vary widely, from genuine scientists to outright cranks, and some died years ago, before the most recent evidence, and yet the "list" makes no distinction between historical criticisms and current contemporary criticisms.  I think the existing article on the Big Bang would be the best place to present any notable and reputable criticisms, referencicng the scientists who have voiced those criticisms in context.Urgent01 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; huge BLP violation, not to mention 100% OR, and absolutely no evidence that this list is notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of notability. Big Bang states topic very well. ///Euro Car  GT  21:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. No sources, not even bad ones. Edward321 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A passing admin could SNOW this if they wished, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:LISTN, has nothing worth merging, and has a POV title unsuitable for a redirect.  I foresee a snow close coming soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR which fails WP:LISTN and violates WP:BLP. -- 101.119.28.55 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — 101.119.28.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The ip 101.119.28.55 has only been used to vote, apart from two edits. - Sidelight 12 Talk 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the editors other edits are outside this topic area. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Using deletion page to teach my students how new ideas are treated in establishment science. As wikipedia mirrors peer-review process exquisitely. Wavyinfinity (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If any of Wavyinfinity's "students" are reading this, I suggest that you try studying real science instead of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Our articles on Science and Pseudoscience are an excellent place to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason, pseudoastronomy is a red link. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me help you there. jps (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that Wavyinfinity is topic banned and can no longer respond to any comment here, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:SNOW Aerospeed (Talk) 21:48, 13 February 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.