Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral galaxy dynamics


 * 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. Consensus is that the theory expounded here has not received enough coverage to have its own article. Whether the theory is scientifically legitimate is a topic for scientists to answer. Whether the theory should be discussed at spiral galaxy can be decided over there; I emphasize that this AFD does not disallow inclusion over there in any way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Spiral galaxy dynamics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article contains Original Resaerch as it describes a theory of evolution of spiral arms proposed in a research paper. Moreover, it briefs some outcomes of the theorized model in article sub-sections. The theory presented on origin of spiral structure in the article has not attracted wide spread attention from others in the field, and so it fails notability criteria (can be verified from google, for example). All sources, except one, are self citations; problem with other citation is described on the talk page. Some sentences are copy-pasted from the publication (eg. in section "Bisymmetric spirals"). Creator and main contributor of the article seems to have conflict of interest (images in the article, taken from the publication, are declared as "own work" by the article creator, so article creator seems to be author of the publication). UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 18:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Science is not based on research papers. It is based on data and on mathematical analysis from the known laws of physics, and is thus entirely objective. The article describes the unique model of spiral structure in keeping with both observation and the mathematics of Newtonian gravity. As such it deserves to remain as a matter of science. RQG (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Science is not absolute. Any theory can be disproven by observations. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A model may be unique, may be correct, may be a groundbreaking discovery, but still can not be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia because of Wikipedia policies. Anyone can propose and even publish theories, but if they have not received considerable attention/coverage, they can not be included. On the other hand, an incorrect and debunked theory can be included if it is widely known and discussed in media (technical or general).--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 20:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There was actually a reasonable amount of coverage for the original papers, although it is hard to find much of it on the internet after this time period. http://science-wired.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/where-did-you-get-those-lovely-spirals.html http://news.softpedia.com/news/Milky-Way-Needs-to-Be-Remapped-129321.shtml https://phys.org/news/2012-03-stellar-superhighway-milky.html. One may agree with inclusion of widely known but incorrect theories if it is also clearly reported that they are not established, if alternatives are properly considered (which is the function of this article) and if their content is accurately reported (which is not the case for the diagram of spirals from ellipses in the article spiral galaxy which is shown from a rotating reference frame: Stellar orbits are not centrally aligned. It actually shows one spiral twice). Another site showing that diagram is incorrect, and with an independent description of the model http://playtechs.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/spiral-galaxy-hack.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: The only reason to keep this would be as an example of all the things that a Wikipedia article should not be. Apparent WP:COI, lack of WP:GNG, no secondary or tertiary sources (except a gratuitous link to Hipparcos data), looks more like an WP:ESSAY than an article about a tangible and well-defined subject.  Admittedly the author was advised several years ago to shovel all the crap out of a more conventional article into something like this, but if it actually described spiral galaxy dynamics in a complete and non-partisan way then likely nobody would have objected in the first place.  Did I mention we should get rid of it?  Possibly, as such a general term, there would be no harm in redirecting, but it is hardly a likely search term.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It was just redirected to spiral galaxy dynamics by someone else. That could be undone. One may observe that it has been accepted as scientific by five reviewers in respected journals. RQG (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is, in fact, possible to google for independent work supporting the result that stars move along spiral arms, contrary to accepted belief. I have added a paragraph with a reference to a press release from the Royal Astronomical Society, which also references the importance of the work to astronomy RQG (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a journal of every scientific paper, only those of groundbreaking, controversial or otherwise notable significance. This is none of those. See how sparsely populated Category:Academic journal articles is (there should be more than that though). Also, COI is a no no, though a secondary issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The importance of the article is as described in the referenced News bulletin of the Royal Astronomical Society. To be honest I don't think this should be classed either as original research, or as a description of a research paper. The description of a spiral potential is absolutely standard Newtonian dynamics. To make a comparison, if it were an invention it would not be patentable because the model is sufficiently simple and obvious that any competent dynamicist working in the field should have been able to come up with it. I have given references to two others who did just that, one of them prominent in the field. My contribution was only to compare stellar velocities in the Milky Way with those of the model. I do not see a conflict of interest, only a desire for correct science. It is surely desirable that Wikipedia articles are written by those who know something about the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a partial merge to Spiral galaxy on the order of one paragraph. I sympathize with the author in that this discussion may feel like a rejection of the theory covered in the paper; that it is not, nor are Wikipedia editors qualified to do so. Rather, as an encyclopedia, we are working under guidelines that require for scientific theories to be widely covered and accepted before they can become article topics in their own right; and it does not appear that this theory has cleared that hurdle yet. As for notability of the article per se (if that argument was intended), that bar is even higher and applies to outright seminal stuff like The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. - I don't think COI is much of an issue here, except when it comes to assessing topic notability (naturally :p). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have not found the policy guideline that scientific theories are widely covered and accepted, and indeed one wants an encyclopedia to be able to look up that which is recherche. Indeed there are many topics in Wikipedia on material which can only be found in academic journals. I do not see why this should be different. I have found that "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist," together with the statement "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals....". but four such references are given, together with a News report from the Royal Astronomical Society. A partial merge makes some sense, but I was previously asked to make a separate article.RQG (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we have a special policy for scientific theories; what is used are the general notability guidelines. In essence, if the article is about the theory per se, it needs to have received substantial coverage in unconnected secondary sources. If the theory is presented as an explanation within the framework of the article about its subject, it needs to be widely accepted to avoid giving undue weight to non-mainstream explanations. I think that whichever one of these ways one turns in the current case, there are some issues. But I believe the objections would be less substantial when discussing the theory as a section within the larger article. - If that has been hashed out before, eh. Don't want to go round in circles here, naturally :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice against succinctly summarizing the research in another article. Phys.org churns press releases and is not a reliable source for science news. Softpedia is more about game reviews than science; I wouldn't count it either. The only source that clears the reliability bar and can be considered independent is the ScienceNOW story. This, and the fact that the original paper has received only a smattering of citations in almost a decade even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar, indicates that the subject does not stand on its own, and the way to give it due weight is to cover it concisely as part of a larger whole. For purposes of comparison, Francis and Anderson (2009) has 7 citations on the Web of Science; checking one of those, Zuker et al. (2015), we find that not only does it have 12 WoS citations accumulated in less time, but it only gives Francis and Anderson (2009) a passing mention and does not consider that paper's results conclusive. These theme holds in all the papers by others that cite Francis and Anderson (2009) on WoS: a brief mention among multiple other references. In addition, as mentioned above, the current article is a copyright violation. Compare the following two passages, the first from Francis and Anderson (2009) and the latter from the "Bisymmetric spirals" section:
 * Thus, a two-armed gaseous spiral can be stable, whereas multiarmed gaseous spirals cannot. Outgoing gas applies a pressure to the inside of a spiral arm with an inverse proportionality to radius (figure 15). If one gaseous arm advances compared with the bisymmetric position, the pressure due to gas from the other arm will be reduced. At the same time, pressure on the retarded arm due to outgoing gas from the advanced arm will be increased. Thus gas motions provide a mechanism to maintain the symmetry of two-armed spirals.
 * Thus, a two-armed gaseous spiral can be stable, whereas multiarmed gaseous spirals cannot. Outgoing gas applies pressure to the trailing edge of a spiral arm with an inverse proportionality to radius. If one gaseous arm advances compared to the bisymmetric position, the pressure due to gas from the other arm will be reduced. At the same time, pressure on the retarded arm due to outgoing gas from the advanced arm will be increased. Thus gas motions preserve the symmetry of two-armed spirals.
 * This is why I say "delete" instead of "partial merge": the research is legitimate but the text is bad. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The science is legitimate.  Just probably not notable enough for its own article, and certainly not for this article as written.  Lithopsian (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In fact the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) finds 253 citations for Francis and Anderson. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=AND&obj_logic=OR&author=Francis%2C+Charles%0D%0AAnderson%2C+Erik&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1
 * Excluding self citations, there are 222 citations. This is hugely greater than the typical number of citations for scientific papers. For the three papers by Francis and Anderson referenced in the article, there are 46 citations. Excluding self citations and restricting to citations in refereed journals, There are 36 citations. Again this is much greater than typical. RQG (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...honestly? Not sure that is such a good indicator of notability. I've got 50-odd citations for a specific bit of modelling on penguin populations, and no one in their right mind would consider that stuff worthy of a standalone article in an encyclopedia. With high-profile topics like galaxy formation, I imagine the threshold is somewhat higher still. That's why I'd say, include in another article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes honestly. Many journals run with a citation index of less than one citation per paper. Even an important journal like MNRAS has an impact factor of less than five. A very few papers obtain large number of citations. Unlike penguins, hard science is dull stuff. In the case of these particular articles, the number of citations actually might be expected to be lower, because once one has a correct analysis of spiral structure, there is not much more to say.RQG (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, my models have, like, actual formulas and stats and shit. Who you callin' Not Hard Science over there :# -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL, I don't make the terminology. It might be fair to say that so-called "soft" sciences are statistics based, but statistics is often more rigorous than applied maths and theoretical physics (at Cambridge it is in the same department as pure maths). Certainly my experience is that economists now learn much more useful maths than physicists! RQG (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Total number of citations your publications have is irrelevant. The point is that is your theory notable? If it is, PLEASE bring substantial evidence of discussion of your Theory of development of spiral arms in galaxies in other sources. As people have mentioned here, your paper describing your theory has just over dozen citations, half of them are your own, rest mention some minor aspects from the paper, eg. star distances etc, but not your model. Whenever your model gets widespread attention, it will automatically make into Wikipedia, do not worry. We are always eager to create articles.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 11:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have already mentioned that the referenced papers have far more citations than that, that it is a calculation based on data not a theory or a model, that it is not unique to me, and that the result is described by the Royal Astronomical Society as important. The Wikipedia guidelines do not require "widespread" they require "significant". Please see my response below. RQG (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To ascertain whether the article meets Wikipedia criteria, I think we must use the criteria as set out by Wikipedia itself, not personal assessment. I have therefore given careful consideration to those criteria described in Original Research and in general notability guidelines. As described above the article does not fail the "original research" guideline, as the material is contained in four papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

It has been suggested that the article describes theory, with the suggestion that it may be some kind of personal theory. In fact the velocities of stars are calculated from observations using data from publically available databases. According to the criteria "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." This is demonstrated by the number of times the calculations have passed peer review

The alignment of orbits is also verified in independent studies as seen in the reference to the Royal Astronical Society News report. This also shows that a significant minority accept the existence of these alignments, although it may indeed be the case that the majority do not. The generally accepted theory was formulated in the absence of data, and as Thomas Kuhn remarked, when theories are disproven by data the adherents by and large are not converted but eventually die off (or words to that effect).

The second section on spiral potential is not personal theory or original research, but is a simple application of a Gravitational potential. This is well covered in numerous text books. The principal is described in potential well "The graph of a 2D potential energy function is a potential energy surface that can be imagined as the Earth's surface in a landscape of hills and valleys. Then a potential well would be a valley surrounded on all sides with higher terrain, which thus could be filled with water (e.g., be a lake) without any water flowing away toward another, lower minimum (e.g. sea level). In the case of gravity, the region around a mass is a gravitational potential well...". This material is sufficiently well known that particular sources should not be required.

The section on star formation also invokes only standard physics and standard knowledge of star formation in molecular clouds which is also well documented in Wikipedia.

The notability guideline requires "significant coverage" and defines what is meant by this. It actually does not require "widespread coverage" which might be considered to include some of the less reliable blogs mentioned above. The Royal Astronomical Society News bulletin does constitute significant coverage for the alignments which are the main topic of the article, as well as emphasising the importance of the topic.

I agree that the current title of the article is not particularly suitable, but I did not choose it. The old title was also not good. I think the title should be be something like "The alignment of stellar orbits". This should help to make clear that the main content of the article is about calculated results, and should give more weight to the independent results reported by the Royal Astronomical Society. RQG (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks secondary independent coverage that we would look for in WP:SCIRS. Something would have to pass muster in Spiral galaxy before seriously considering splitting it off into a separate article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the definitions as given there
 * "A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles."
 * "A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed."
 * As it seems to me, according to these definitions, our articles are a secondary source, not a primary source. That is to say, we had no part in any of the teams who took the observations. As far as orbital alignments are concerned, we simply did routine calculations on the data produced by numerous astronomers (noting that routine calculations are not regarded as original research) and presented it in context. It was then peer reviewed and published by reputable publishers. RQG (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Calculations are original research. If these papers made no original contributions, why did peer reviewers accept them, and why did reputable publishers then publish them? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not the Wikipedia definition or the purpose of the policy as described on the relevant pages. Nor is it necessarily the case that policies followed by journals use identical terminology to those specified by Wikipedia.
 * The routine calculations had not been done on those databases before, but the calculations are no less routine for that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly! The peer-reviewed papers contain original research (Wikipedia definition, perhaps not the one you are thinking of) and hence they are primary sources (Wikipedia definition again). Sources, usually web sites and books but possibly stuff like review papers, that repeat the "original research" or add additional commentary, are secondary or tertiary sources (Wikipedia definitions). Secondary and tertiary sources may not add more claims but establish notability. This distinction is slightly strained in the context of scientific artciles where peer-reviewed primary sources are heavily cited, but please make the effort to understand these critical Wikipedia policies. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can only understand what is written on the Wikipedia policy pages. The links you give confirm what I have said, not what you have said. Please will you ensure that you impose Wikipedia policies, not a personal interpretation which is not written on those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs)
 * Anything, except review articles, that publishes in journals is primary source. Your article is not a review article. You have proposed a model and discussed its implications, you have contradicted Density wave theory in your paper. This is no secondary source.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 00:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not I who contradicted density wave theory, but the data produced by others. This was already known to the most influential people in the field. Their response was to try to discredit the data, even before I entered the field. There is now too much data for that, and the result has been corroborated in N-body simulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs)
 * Note that "routine calculations", as described in the No Original Research policy, are things that no one would get a journal article published for. Converting a result from one system of units to another would be a "routine calculation". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, if one has a measurement of the radial velocity (towards and away from us) and proper motion (across the sky) and distance, it is a routine calculation to work out the velocity in any coordinate system. It is also a routine calculation to ascertain what proportion of those velocities are aligned in particular directions. The same routine calculation has to be done many times over, but these are things which almost anyone could do with modest math skills and competency with a spreadsheet. RQG (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't have it both ways. Either it's a routine calculation, or it's a significant contribution to the science. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not having it both ways. Most of the time, normal science advances by carrying out huge amounts of routine "drudgery". The only extraordinary thing here is that this work had not already been done. But that is because the field was in a state of pre-science (as described by Kuhn). RQG (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are implying that new (ie. not done before, for whatever reason) interpretation of existing data, is not original research?--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, only that that appeared to be the implication of the Wikipedia definition. I would find it somewhat galling to think I did not do original research. However, the Wikipedia definition is clear that it is only original research the first time it is published in a reputable source. The second, third and fourth times it is no longer original research, but a report on material contained in the previous source. Thus the Wikipedia article is not original research, although the article in Proc Roy Soc A was. The republication of the interpretation in articles in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical society and in Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy was not original research, although those papers also contained other material which was original research. The acceptance of those papers indicates that a significant proportion of astronomers do indeed accept the finding. RQG (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although the science presented is interesting, and deserves a paragraph in related articles, the lack of buzz both within astronomy circles and in the wider media makes the suitability of a dedicated article doubtful; the case made by XOR&#39;easter is compelling. ☽Dziban303  »»  Talk☾  07:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The real reason for the lack of buzz is that it is profoundly embarrassing that they have been teaching false science and that they failed to do the calculations themselves, as was their job. You need only look at their conflict of interest to know why they do not want this work to be more widely recognised. Nonetheless, I think significant numbers of astronomers do recognise the validity of the calculations (or it would not have been possible to get them passed by five reviewers) but they prefer to stay silent rather than offend those most influential in the field. RQG (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, but assuming that to be the case, that's not something that can be rectified via a Wikipedia article. We summarize what has already received coverage; we do not try to provide coverage where someone perceives that it is due but has been withheld. You can see how that approach would lead to a perfect storm of special interest advocacy.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I assure you, insinuating a discipline-wide conspiracy to ignore your results is not the best way to go about defending your research. ☽Dziban303  »»  Talk☾  23:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a defence, and nor is it something to be rectified by Wikipedia as such. It is just an explanation for why there is less coverage than might be expected for something which is an important enough topic to be included in undergraduate level courses. It is also the reason Wikipedia policy requires "significant" attention, rather than "widespread" attention (with quite a long and detailed description of what significant might mean). It is actually significant that those who oppose it remain silent and do nothing to refute it, the reason being that they cannot. RQG (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: evident case of original research and lack of notability. MaoGo (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the Wikipedia guideline Original Research " The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", and below "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals...". Four peer reviewed journal articles are given. As for notability, the result found independently by another researcher is considered notable enough for the Royal Astronomical Society to publish a news report,  http://www.ras.org.uk/1967-new-theory-of-evolution-for-spiral-galaxy-. There may of course be other sources which I have not yet identified. RQG (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A press release is not independent coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was independent, as it referred to the independent finding of the same result by another researcher. RQG (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OR also states that secondary sources are needed. I think enough discussion about this point has already been made. MaoGo (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It states that secondary sources are desirable but that primary sources can be used with care. However, in this case the primary sources are publicly available databases. RQG (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge - it's almost entirely original research. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should OR be kept by merging it with something else? If it is OR, then obvious solution would be deletion. What do you think? UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 03:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are reliable (peer-reviewed) sources to verify much of the content in the article, so it isn't really OR. However, there is a lack of secondary and tertiary sources to establish notability, or equivalent scientific references to the subject from non-involved authors.  The content of the article is hardly a rounded summary of "spiral galaxy dynamics", but an in-depth description of one aspect of that subject, written by involved editors, so again fails.  As such, a short mention of the subject within a more general article could be supported, but the article as currently written is too deeply flawed.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It remains that it is not original research according to the Wikipedia guideline, both because it is published in a reputable source and because of the specific exclusion of routine calculation. The criteria to be used should be those set out by Wikipedia. RQG (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2018 (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.