Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring singularity


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ring singularity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is this page really needed due to the fact that there is both this page, the Black Hole page, the Gravitational singularity page, the Kerr Metric page and the Rotating black hole page. These pages all explain the concept perfectly well, which arguably brings WP:NOTABILITY into question. Additionally, the article seems to be a bit of a mess in its layout, like talking about random things in totally different sections, it also seems to contravene WP:NOR - &#124;&#124; RuleTheWiki  &#124;&#124; (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I have yet to look at notability and OR issues, but your assertion of redundancy seems false. Black Hole has a single sentence on the topic. Gravitational singularity has two sentences on the topic. Kerr metric mentions a  "ring-shaped curvature singularity" but no more, and it is not mentioned at all in Rotating black hole. Two sentences in Gravitational singularity is not enough to explain the concept, discuss properties of ring singularities, and their implications for black hole and wormhole physics. --Mark viking (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being a bit of a mess is not among the deletion critera at AfD. It is not original research. There are no conclusions in the article that haven't been made in the literature. Referencing could be a lot better, but the article dates to the early era in Wikipedia when science articles were felt not to need references for material which was in textbooks. The term is in wide use for this particular type of singularity, there are multiple references available, and it is complex enough to merit an article of its own. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A WP:BEFORE style GScholar search shows hundreds of paper,s spanning half a century, discussing various aspects ring singularities. A Gbooks search shows that ring singularities are discussed in some depth in general relativity textbooks such as Wald's book and and the book by Hobson, et. al.. The topic looks solidly notable. The article could use better referencing, but this is a matter of editing, not deletion. A notable topic and an article with no major structural problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article covers a real topic that is just barely touched on in the adjacent articles, a healthy situation. The topic seems to be well covered in the scientific literature, and as Mark Viking says in books on general relativity: by Robert M. Wald by Paul Sukys by Michael Lockwood by Arne Grenzebach and so on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2016 (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.