Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star fission


 * 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, multiple editors have tried to work on this, no point letting this sit out there for more time. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Star fission

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it barely addresses the page's topic. Just try to read the first section. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, recreate as redirect to Star - this topic is notable, just this article is garbage that should be removed, so delete and then create as a new redirect to Star which discusses the topic. In the future, new editors might recreate a true encyclopedic entry on the topic.--Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a notable topic, though it should be called "Binary Star Formation" or something like that. "Fission" is confusing and in keeping with the rest of the garbage in this article. There is a section on the topic at the binary star article. I think that should be the starting point.AstroCog (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete.  This looks a lot like the User:Marshallsumter content I fought to improve at, e.g., Stellar surface fusion and Proton-antiproton annihilation.   It reads as though the author has a sciencey-sounding keyword they don't understand, then pulled one random sentence from every Google Scholar hit for that keyword. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 01:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice for recreation. I've been reading and cross-referencing this article for an hour now and this looks like nothing but nonsense. The references only seem to be tangentially related to the article itself, and after a half dozen read-through, I still can't seem to figure out what most of the article has to do with the subject matter. I find the subject fascinating on the surface but can find nearly nothing here that isn't total, unmitigated original research. The article cannot exist in its current state, but I see no problem whatsoever with it being rewritten by an editor that isn't pushing his own agenda. Trusilver  14:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reading through the first paragraph alone, I see a sentence lifted from a source without attribution. It's likely that this continues through the whole article, since this seems to be a pattern with all of this editor's articles (see this ANI thread), it should be deleted.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There may be potential for a decent article here; however it would have wholly different content and the presence of the current bundle of OR would be more of a help than a hindrance. Get rid of it. bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2011 (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.