Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology


 * 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 no consensus. With a note that many arguments at both sides are not really policy-based or well argued. I would recommend that interested editors clean up the article for the problems identified during this debate. If that doesn't result in article that clearly establishes notability, I see no objection to start another AfD. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-creation cosmology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Back in 2006 when I last nominated this page for deletion, I was arguing that it was WP:VANITY. Well, I agree that it is, but actually now that Wikipedia has grown up there is a much better explanation for why this article should be deleted. Namely, it fails our notability guidelines. In particular, the theory as stated is not known in the relevant academic community and has not received the independent notice we require in order to write a neutral article. What we have right now is essentially original research in the sense that although some of the work has been published in out-of-the-way journals, there hasn't been any third-party citations nor recognition that this idea has any staying power. Wikipedia is not just a compendium of novel ideas. We need that third-party recognition in order to write articles. This subject simply doesn't have it. jps (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This review article says that 60 authors have worked on this topic. Do you dispute that, or do you think that's not significant third party coverage within the field? AliceIngvild94 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the paper claims the theory was falsified by the Gravity Probe B precession experiment, which is a mark in its favor if we're trying to establish it as not pseudoscience. There's no reason why Wikipedia can't include theories that are well-posed but incorrect, and the somewhat substantial attention this subject has gotten seems to make it notable. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ApSS was recently reformed, so I don't think Barber's article made it in. I don't know that the claim of 60 authors is fair, it doesn't seem to me to be backed up by someone who didn't make-up the theory (it is Barber's theory). I also am not contending that this is pseudoscience. It isn't. It's just obscure and hasn't received the third-party coverage we would want to be able to report on it neutrally. jps (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As I see that most of the authors working on this theory are from 'non-western' countries might it be seen by some that the comment that this subject is not notable is an example of cultural hegemony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.182.1 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2015


 * Delete A gscholar search about the author (GA Barber) turns out a small citation count (this add-on estimates an h-index of 2, if you care). Now, that is in my view proof that the author is not notable (2 would be under-average even for low-citation fields), but it is no proof that a theory is not.
 * The review paper claims SCC2 "has led to over 80 citations". This is an unclear formulation, which could mean that the SCC2 founding paper had more that 80 cites (but then google scholar does not know of it) or that all papers that mentioned that theory collected more than 80 citations which is obviously not so impressive (a series of 13 papers each citing the previous ones generates 87 cites, but with no external cites it is obviously an unnotable walled garden - it could even be reached by a single author).
 * I am ready to reconsider if an independant and reliable source came up, but I would not hold my breath. Tigraan (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Edit: no objection to a redirect to Brans-Dicke theory per below. Tigraan (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the "review paper" was posted to arXiv but is not published; it's listed as submitted but is several years old now, which strongly suggests that it was rejected. Between that and it being by the original author or the idea, I would not consider that review article to be of any validity in establishing notability. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the question is how notable the theory is then a quick 'Scholar Google' search for "Self Creation Cosmology" would not only give you some of the relevant articles, (I have just got 144 results) but also you would see whether most of them are just multiple cites from earlier papers or genuinely new work on the theory itself. (Most of them are the latter) If the question is whether the article is currently topical and the theory an active field of research then the fact that there have been 35 citations, all developments on the theory, in the last three years may give some indication of the answer. Garthbarber (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar count of articles fails pretty much on an academic version of WP:GOOGLEHITS: anyone can publish anything, but not anywhere... The quality of the sources has to be considered since you can publish any junk you want by paying a predatory journal.
 * Moreover, with all due respect to obscure but worthy fields of research, 12 cites per year does "give an indication": it is ridiculously low. That is three researchers with one paper per year each citing four papers in the same field: hardly notable (4 cites / paper looks low, too; in metallurgy or physics, it is usually around 30 cites per paper, with around 20 falling in the subdomain). Tigraan (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs to clearly express that the theory is not generally accepted as a plausible theory of gravity, and parts of the article are UNDUE and it lacks inline citations, but on the other hand WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The topic has received independent notice many times over, as anyone can see. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article deserves attention and consideration as a non-standard cosmology since, although neither well known nor discussed by many experts, it has had enough papers dealing with in the scientific literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.102.198.12 (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As of now, I'm leaning WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has major issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, especially given that one of its main proponents (who I will direct to WP:SELF and WP:COI) wrote the majority of this article. The theory is cited and aknowledged in literature, see in particular which writes "There are also [...] universes based on Barber gravity (Mohanty & Mishra 2002) and bimetric gravity (Yeranyan 2001); Barber is cited, Bimetric is not...". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I partly agree. But I'm not convinced that the article really does meet the significant coverage test at WP:GNG. So that needs to be demonstrated (either here or, better, by cleaning up the article) for me to think the article should be kept. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate Virginia Trimble's reviews, but she is somewhat famous in these for highlighting ideas that are not very well-known as well as providing an excellent overview of the more impactful stuff. Generally, the obscure ideas tend to be grouped together in laundry lists such as the one cited here. I don't think Wikipedia should have articles on any of the eight proposals listed there. There just isn't enough independent notice of them. jps (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep there are plenty of substantial writings by independent authors on this topic. WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the Google Scholar results do it for me, unless there's something problematic I'm not seeing - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Delete on verifying that the problems are indeed problems - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem as I see it is the overwhelming reference to Astrophysics and Space Science. The journal was until recently a haven for out-of-the-way and maverick ideas associated with nonstandard cosmology until the editors cleaned shop about five years ago or so. Their new editorial policy makes it clear that they will no longer be a haven for such: "Papers in mathematical physics or in general relativity which do not establish clear astrophysical applications will no longer be considered." This is why, I think, Barber hasn't been publishing in that journal much anymore. Note that these are all references to papers before the cleaning of house.
 * When you look for notable independent scholarly work on astronomy and physics, you need to look for the top-tier journals. ApJ, MNRAS, PhysRevD, and even A&A can all be excellent sources. I note that this idea doesn't really appear in any of those journals. This is a WP:REDFLAG. jps (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that would count as "something problematic" in my question. I'll think a bit and look again later - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no, this is rubbish - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Questionable The article contains a large number of apparent citations to works by third parties in reliable sources (the basic criterion for inclusion per WP:GNG). However, in checking whether those references are real, I couldn't find an actual origin for most of the ones that aren't by Barber (who is not a third party as the original author of the hypothesis). One third-party source I was able to find, Blachske & Dabrowski 2012, mostly mentions self-creation cosmology in passing, so it doesn't quite met the "significant coverage" test to me. Also, given that the paper is dated 2004 on arXiv and 2012 in the journal and that the journal (Entropy) is open access, I'm skeptical that it's a journal with proper peer review. Thus, at the very least, to get my vote to keep, the article needs better sourcing that clearly establishes this hypothesis has significant coverage in reliable (ie not open access pay-to-publish with limited peer review) sources that are third-party. Based on the comments by others, this may well be doable, but it needs to be done. Note: I was sent here by a note at WT:Astronomy. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Entropy should be considered non-reliable. Thomson ISI includes it in its rankings and it has an impact factor of 1.564 in 2013. I can't find the 2014 IF however, so maybe ISI stopped including them in their ranking, but it is index in severage selective databases so... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ashill is right. The publisher, MDPI, is on Beall's List: . Basically, it is a bad idea to accept ANY paper that is published in a journal from Beall's list as being reliable. jps (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Very strange indeed. I never knew of any predatory journal with an impact factor... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If the older links to the references in the article are broken then a quick 'Scholar Google' or 'ADS Abstract Service' search will find them. Garthbarber (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For sure, and I'll do that at some point if no one beats me to it. (It's a minor pain.) But an additional comment: the original proponent of an idea, who wrote the article in the first place, actively defending its inclusion at the least doesn't look good and is questionable per WP:COI and WP:SELF. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 18:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning Delete. References to this topic appear to be primarily by one author (Barber) and published in Astrophysics & Space Science, which as jps points out above has decided to stop hosting these kinds of articles. I can't find any coverage (through ADS) of this topic in the major journals. Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here are some sources independent of Barber:, , . I don't think you can discount papers from Astrophysics and Space Science just because they no longer accept mathematical physics papers. However, the the topic may be more notable as a mathematical construction than a physical theory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ApSS has had problems that were well-documented historically and Dopita, when he became the editor-in-chief, basically dealt with them meaning that you will not find any more papers on this subject in that journal. What has happened is that the journal has become more reliable from the perspective of Wikipedia, and this means that we should look with skepticism at any claims that a subject is notable purely on the basis of inclusion in that journal. The other two journals you link to have incredibly low impact factors when compared to the top-tier journals that are mentioned above. Basically, the problem is one of lack of notice. That's the notability argument, and that's where it fails. Some day, maybe someone will find something important to document about this particular idea. It may even bear inclusion (subject to WP:WEIGHT considerations) on other pages. But having a stand-alone article on a scientific subject in Wikipedia requires serious and significant notice of the idea which I do not think your citations show. jps (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify something I meant to note; if the bulk of the sources are in one journal it raises a flag to me that this might not be a widely discussed topic. Sam Walton (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that ApSS no longer accepts mathematical physics papers. The problem is that the editorial and peer review standards in that journal were very low at the time. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have updated the citations to proper references, with arxiv/bibcode/doi links when I could find them. This should greatly facilite our jobs here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've now gone through the cited references. Based on those, I change my !vote to delete. Several of the sources didn't mention self-creation cosmology at all or only very much in passing (I deleted all of these). Most of the remaining sources are all in Astrophysics and Space Science from 2006 or earlier (which makes them suspect as pointed out by ) or by Barber and thus not third party. The remaining papers are in Entropy (suspect as mentioned above) and Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (which I can't even confirm the existence of on Google; I don't think it's Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, which does at least exist). This leaves a grand total of one cited source (Brans 1987, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987GReGr..19..949B, in General Relativity and Gravitation) by a third party which is largely about this topic. Since WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in reliable third-party secondary sources, this fails, to me. One article is not significant coverage, and it's a primary source, not a secondary source, anyway. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 01:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that looking a who cites the first two papers (Barber 1982 and the 'refutation' of Brans 1987) would be interesting. These are highly cited paper, with many from IJTP and GRG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, well, well. It seems that Ap&SS is still publishing a good many articles on the subject, but only by the Indian groups and only related to extensions. I'm having a hard time understanding how this is not violating their editorial policy. Then I checked their editorial board and found that D.R.K. Reddy is sitting on it and he happens to be one of the authors who is interested in this subject from the Brans-Dicke perspective. One possibility might be a redirect of this article to Brans-Dicke theory &mdash; I think that would be okay from the perspective of the larger class of models to which this particular one belongs. It looks like Dopita's attempt at cleaning house didn't stick. Too bad. jps (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that making this a redirect to Brans-Dicke theory (perhaps a subsection thereof) is appropriate. Irrespective of value judgements about one particular journal, the fact that the work on this topic is so heavily concentrated in one low-profile journal harms any notability claim. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 13:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Now I know you think it does not look good that "the original proponent of an idea, who wrote the article in the first place, actively defending its inclusion" but I feel compelled to comment because judgements are being made based on comments made here that are just incorrect. For example:
 * 1. Astrophysics & Space Science is not on Beall's list - in fact I find it hard to find any journals that cite Self-Creation cosmology that are.


 * 2. Of the 127 articles on some 37 different journals world-wide that I have found that do discuss the theory the largest number are indeed on Ap&SS, but only some 42 or so, hardly the majority, and therefore it is difficult to see how the comment above applies: "the fact that the work on this topic is so heavily concentrated in one low-profile journal harms any notability claim".


 * 3. Furthermore it is not unusual for editorial boards to consist of academics with the expertise to publish in that journal.


 * 4. 'The Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics' can be found here: and, as far as I can see, it is also not on Beall's list.

The suggestion that "One possibility might be a redirect of this article to Brans-Dicke theory" might be a good consideration but I see that this comment has been deleted. Garthbarber (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Garthbarber (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The redirect suggestion is still present and has been explicitly supported by three editors. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 12:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC): Right - so it is - I missed it previously - my mistake, sorry. I have struck through that comment.Garthbarber (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not seem to have the sources necessary to pass WP:REDFLAG. Ghostwheel ʘ 23:24, 18 June 2015 (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.