Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Blatant violation of WP:PLAGIARISM. I'm also going to blank most of User:Trilliant, which is a copy of this, and thus equally a violation of WP:PLAGIARISM. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Stellar metamorphosis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entire article is copied word for word from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis. This source has a Creative Commons license, but it is still egregious plagiarism. The article concerns a fringe theory of dubious notability which has previously been deleted from Wikipedia. I can't see a way to save it. Lithopsian (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I moved this from the previous discussion page. ansh 666 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous AfD and as a copyvio. ansh 666 21:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - the previous discussion established in great detail that this topic fails WP:FRINGE. Fringe theories have to be notable to be discussed on Wikipedia, and this one isn't notable, since all major sources are self-published on the vanity publishing website viXra, presumably by the poster or an associate, failing WP:OR. (The article text has a lot of derisive comments on the theory because the poster copied the text over from RationalWiki, but it's clear from the comments below that the poster believes in it word for word.) The claim expressed below that this idea has a long history is groundless - it's based solely on Oparin, a writer on biochemistry, who was loosely summarising knowledge of the history of the universe at a time before stellar fusion was understood, when it was thought that the sun might be made of radioactive materials like uranium, a super-hot ball of lava, or even literally on fire. This is not a theory taken seriously by anyone anywhere except the author, and the article should be deleted at once. Blythwood (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The beginning of the theory is expounded upon by Alexander Oparin in the translation of his work, "The Origin of Life". For those who do not know, Alexander Oparin's hypothesis of the formation of life was shown to be plausible by the Miller-Urey experiment. This same hypothesis clearly regards the formation of life to happen simultaneously as the formation of the Earth itself, which leads the author to the conclusion that the main origin of life hypothesis clearly includes the understanding of Earth being an ancient star at the very end of its evolution. To refute the statement by Blythwood that all major sources are self-published it should be noted that in Oparin's work it is made 100% clear that Earth is an ancient star. These are from the last source reference, “Spectroscopic studies of the red stars lead us to the conclusion that this must first have taken place when the Earth passed from the stage of being a yellow star to that of a being a red one.” and “There was a time when the Earth, too, was passing through the same stage of development as the Sun, namely that of being a yellow star. Later, as it gradually radiated its heat outwards into the cold interplanetary space, it became cooler and cooler. It turned from a yellow star into a red one, its light became dimmer and dimmer and finally went out altogether. The Earth became a dark planet.” As well, it is referenced in one of the self-published papers that Nicolas of Cusa himself, even before Copernicus began his work, claimed that Earth is a star like all the others. "The earth is a star like other stars, is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles fixed... Had Copernicus been aware of these assertions he would probably have been encouraged by them to publish his own monumental work. The latter statements are on the page Nicolas of Cusa. It is made clear that not only is this theory notable, but that the reason why it appears not to be is because it did not have a name. Now that it has a name, it can be further developed accordingly, to account for the correct version of natural events in astrophysics, namely planet formation being stellar evolution itself, as well as allowing for the International Astronomical Union to properly define exoplanet being that no scientific definition currently exists for them. This is a notable theory that needs to be placed in an encyclopedia as it spans 5 centuries. Trilliant (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:49, 6 August 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.