Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal rotation curve


 * 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. Even ignoring some SPA !votes, it seems that there are sufficient sources to meet GNG. If URC is fringe science, that should be covered in the article, but is not a reason to delete. The article will need some page watchers, given the obvious COI issues. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Universal rotation curve

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete This idea is constantly being promoted by Salucci who is the likely author of this article. However, the mainstream academic community has not accepted his ideas. Wikipedia should not be the thing promoting this. jps (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep 1600+ hits on Scholar, 100+ on Books, 34 on ADS. Didn't look too closely, but I get the impression that there is sufficient independent coverage. The sources provided in the article are generally reputable mainstream astrophysics journals. The article can stand improvement, but this doesn't relate to notability of the topic. The same goes for possible problems with user behavior. Paradoctor (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you check citations? The idea that there is a "universal rotation curve" has not been adopted nor considered notable by the experts in the field. The fact that there are 34 citations on ADS is the most telling point here. That's a paltry number for a standalone topic in astronomy. Compare to redshift or large scale structure. jps (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * GNG says "multiple" sources. From what I've seen in notability arguments, a handful of solid, independent sources is usually considered sufficient to establish notability. If there is a specific guideline for astronomy topics, could you please point me to it? Paradoctor (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:FRIND is the relevant guideline here. "Multiple" sources that are serious and independent are needed. The problem here is a lack of serious consideration by the incidental citations in independent sources.
 * This "lack of consideration" has not been established so far. I suggest we talk about evidence presented, rather than so far unsubstantiated claims, would that be acceptable? Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but no one has shown any independent sources that treat this specific topic in a serious way. jps (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fringe theory, no mainstream acceptance. Wikipedia is not the place to push your, as yet, unaccepted theory. (, I took the liberty of altering your comment to "keep", since "oppose" doesn't really mean much here, and I assumed that was what you meant. I hope that was ok.) Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ( Perfectly fine with me, thanks. In "revenge", I edited your edit. ;) BTW, no need to ping me, I watch where I edit.) Paradoctor (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Fringe theory, no mainstream acceptance" is not a deletion argument, see Timecube for a rather extreme example. Paradoctor (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to reread WP:FRINGE. Timecube has an article because of the third-party coverage which is lacking here. jps (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, this is not been established so far. I'm withholding judgment on this until I've seen more hard facts. Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A lack of sources is prima facie evidence for a lack of notability. jps (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsure. If the concept has some non-negligible support it makes sense to describe it in Wikipedia, for those who wish to understand the big picture. We could put in the lede a sentence/paragraph noting that the concept is not universally accepted. Leegrc (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see why you might be unsure, on the face of it, but read WP:GEVAL, please. This is a big, seemingly authoritative article on a fringe, unaccepted theory. We must not skew the balance, and appearance of the encyclopedia that way. It is not responsible, and is a disservice to our readers, and contrary to our purpose, irrespective of any suggested little "rider" clauses. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep There is a big misunderstanding. The Universal Rotation Curve is a mainstram comcept Just one exemple The paper Persic, M. Salucci, P. Stel, F. 1996, MNRAS,  281, 27 The universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies - I. The dark matter connection is one of the papers with more citations  ever (854  from google Scholar) in the literature. ! I am not a fringe sciantist (I would like though!) I have h=41 and 7070 citetion on Google Scholar .I published  more rotation curve than anybody (more than 1050)    I published  a least 40 papers  with several collaborators   in which the URC has played a role, including a Nature one : Gentile, G; Famaey, B.,  Zhao, H.; Salucci, P. 2009. Nature, 461, 627. My papers on URC got about 2000 references, and other people's work at least other 1000; Moreover, there are 2 big misunderstandings  1) I did not invented the concept of URC. It was Rubin's  (who discovered dark matter in Spirals) who did it in works from 1980 -1985 	. I just  perfected and interpreted	it. All thiis written in the wikipedia article  under analysis (not written by me)  2) my group is known for other things than the URC in particular on the nature of Dark matter (this is where go the other 5000 citations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosalucci (talk • contribs)
 * Paolo, we aren't saying your idea is not "mainstream" in the sense of it being promoted by a fringe scientist, we're saying it hasn't received the independent notice that is required by this website for inclusion here. I know that you are very adamant that your idea is an extension of the normal galaxy rotation curve work done by Rubin & Ford, for example. Adding some of this background material to that other article may make some sense if we didn't have it already included (which we do). Basically, the problem here is you attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. jps (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, keep the tone down. Accusing a new contributor of soapboxing sounds rather bitey. Mr. Palucci is new to Wikipedia, and so far, I've seen no reason to believe that he is not willing to contribute in accord with our policies. Paradoctor (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith here. As a profession, I know how Palucci has been promoting his ideas and it is clear that Wikipedia is just the next frontier. jps (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AGF: I did and I do, otherwise I'd probably have reported you by now.
 * "I know" Good, then please produce evidence for this claim. Not here, please, my talkpage will suffice. Or ping me from somewhere else. Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Report me?" I think you are the one who is escalating matters here, and I'm not sure why. As to whether I will "ping" you evidence I'm not sure what you want. Try googling around and seeing for yourself. That's beyond the scope of our conversation. Suffice to say it is the reason this article exists. jps (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are probably best qualified to help establishing whether the topic meets WP:GNG. It would be very helpful if you could provide a few sources that function as WP:SECONDARY sources here. I think a handful papers discussing URCs like this one would be sufficient to establish notability of the topic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That paper does not take the concept of a "universal rotation curve" seriously. jps (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely you jest?!? The title of the paper is "An analysis of 900 optical rotation curves: the universal rotation curve as a power-law and the development of a theory-independent dark-matter modeller". URC is a central topic of the paper. Paradoctor (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, I was referring to a different paper being referred to below. However, David Roscoe's monograph is not a very good source for WP:FRIND purposes as it doesn't establish the subject independent of Salucci's group for Wikipedia purposes. His A&A paper that adopts Salucci's approach to prop up his own non-standard cosmology does not support the contention that this is a topic that is taken seriously. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I understand why I have not seen many collegues of mine writing page for wikipedia in Cosmology ! I encouraged to write this page not for publicity, (I will get more pubblicity when   I will reveal that  the URC  has been rejected by wikipedia because fringe work, as people have said just above)  but as one the some are lacking in  physical cosmology. There is something quite offensive in your point. Wikipedia will not bring a citation or a invitation or a collaboration more than those I alrady have. I aimed to use wikipedia to get the people interested but that are outside academy. This aggression to me is not understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosalucci (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, at its core has a principle of no original research. What you are essentially asking us to do is to report on your original research. What we would need before we write such an article are sources that show there has been serious and extensive notice by your professional colleagues who are independent of your work and can speak to its notability. jps (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be overlooking that his research has been peer-reviewed and published in several of astronomy's Big Five journals. You also seem to ignore that Mr. Palucci has claimed several thousand citations to his papers. Currently, I see no reason to disbelieve that. The purpose of this discussion is to discuss notability, not to alienate a new user, who is also an expert by all appearences, ok? Paradoctor (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The publication record is not dealing with the subject at hand; we're not talking about establishing Dr. Salucci as an expert (he is, of course, though it is unclear whether there should be a WP:BLP about him). What we are pointing out is that the citations to Dr. Salucci's papers do not in any way indicate that this particular idea (that there exists a "universal galactic rotation curve") has ever been taken seriously by anyone except Dr. Salucci and those who work closely with him. Indeed, in my professional opinion I see no evidence that the idea has been treated seriously outside of Dr. Salucci's sponsored work. Since Wikipedia is a non-innovative reference work, this is WP:NOT the place for this article. What's more, it is no secret that there is a lot of promotion going on by Dr. Salucci about these ideas. jps (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "no secret" As I said above, show the evidence. Furthermore, please stop bringing this up here, this is not the appropriate forum for discussing user conduct. Editor behavior is completely irrelevant to notability. Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is entirely appropriate to point out that this article violates our WP:SOAP and WP:NOR requirements. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep this is not a promotion of Paolo Salucci. about the concept of URC I think there are enough peer review, quotes and anything else to be able to introduce the concept of universal rotation curve as he had already understood vera rubin! I think wikipedia should ensure correct information! This attitude is very offensive Stefania.deluca (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that our core principle is verifiability. This means that we need citations to reliable sources for each and every disputed claim. In this particular discussion, we need proof that URC meets our general notability guidelines. Basically, we need several mutually independent sources that discuss the concept, and which can be generally be trusted to know what they talk about. This one is an example, though general review articles rotation curve statistics and modelling would be eeven better. Expositions in popular science texts also contribute to notability, though this seems a rather specialist topic. Paradoctor (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * These are the citations of the papers involved according to NASA and google. [number 1] and [number 2] and [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosalucci (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm, 854 citations to a single paper? Now, user jps has, in effect, claimed that none of these hundreds of papers contains significant coverage of the topic of universal rotation curves. I doubt that. E. g., contains "Universal rotation curves reveal the following characteristics. Most luminous galaxies show a slightly declining rotation curves in the outer part, following a broad maximum in the disk. Intermediate galaxies have nearly flat rotation from across the disk. Less luminous galaxies have monotonically increasing rotation velocities across the optical disk. While Persic et al. conclude that the dark-to-luminous mass ratio increases with decreasing luminosity, mass deconvolutions are far from unique."


 * I'd say that clearly crosses the trivial coverage-threshold. Maybe you know more papers with more coverage? A review article an the topic would be perfect. Paradoctor (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're now using a quote out of context. "Universal rotation curves" in that review article is merely a synonym for a statistical average. Note that there is no citation to Salucci's article in those paragraphs. If we think that the synonym is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, we should just redirect to galaxy rotation curve, which is still simply a delete in all but name only. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Point of order (if that is the right phrase and its usage is appropriate here): I am trying to understand the relevant Wikipedia standards as they apply to the present discussion. Q1: is it that citations in the popular press and/or in mainstream textbooks are what would make this topic relevant enough for Wikipedia, and that citations by other scholarly articles (read "obscure citations") are not as valuable? Q2: is it the case that the most valuable steps are for those who would keep the article to list the citations to the topic and for those who would delete the article to critique the quantity or quality of the supplied citations? Leegrc (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Point of order: "The point of order calls upon the chair to make a ruling. The motion is sometimes erroneously used to ask a question of information or a question of parliamentary procedure."
 * Q1: Popular press not here, textbook normally yes. Other scholarly articles: If the authors are in the same field, they can certainly serve as secondary sources. The bone of contention here is whether the article coverage is significant. Saying "URCs are used to model rotation curve statistics" is trivial. Stating that URCs have flat rotation for intermediate galxies is not. You might want to read WP:GNG and WP:RS/WP:SECONDARY.
 * Q2: Mostly yes. We do not judge the "quality" of sources, we need to know about their reliability for the statements they are intended to support. Quantity is certainly not a problem here, neither is reliability. As I said above, there is no consensus yet about the kind of coverage contained in the citing papers. Paradoctor (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reflections Very often I am asked from important journals and editors to write  a review of my work done so far and so it happens to a many number of collegues of mine, leaders of some research field. I usually turn these proposals  down since I have not time, but self reviews are common in science, actually they count more than "anonymous review" !.  I never never  thought that they were  a mortal sin as it seems wikipidia rules imply! The crucial point for me when writing a  review  is whether the content represents well the literature, if it has been impartial. The absolute importance of the issue under review  is, in my opinion relative, since one can write down a short article or it could be asked to be merge it in another page/article. Now the last question: why in wiki the URC did not come out earlier? This seems a crucial question, but it is not! I started to help stefania to write this page  only when I realized that many cosmological entries were missing or unbalanced against the main stream in Wikipedia I can provide evidence entry by entry.  So Cosmology in WP needs some action, and I started on the things I was better used and aknowledged but of course I will stop for the strict "conflict of interest"that WP has. (by P. Salucci) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosalucci (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but the problem here is that we have no way of verifying credentials. What we are left with is a model of consensus building that we need to work with to change articles. If you find errors in cosmology articles, I think it more than appropriate for you to bring them up on various talkpages. What we don't want to do is to create new parallel articles that have the same content. Galaxy rotation curve is a good place to start. jps (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and where, above, I use the term "fringe", please don't be offended, but rather read WP:FRINGE. I do recognise that we use these terms sometimes too freely here, and new users may not understand the context. I apologise for that. Nobody is calling your work, or professionalism, into question, merely the significance, at present, of this topic, under our guidelines, for inclusion as an article. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There is sufficient independent (i.e. not by Salucci) coverage, as Gscholar shows. Yes, it might be a fringe/minoritary/controversial theory, but it is notable in the WP:GNG sense: we have multiple independent academic sources covering it. Salucci seems a respectable academic too, he has a paper in Nature where he references his concept as well. This (even if it isn't an independent source) strengthens the case for academic respectability/notability. I want to refer to this paper which can help him understand better how Wikipedia works for scientists.-- cyclopia speak!  15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now - this is so far out of the mainstream as to be a fringe theory, although the way that science changes is through different paradigms. I'm not sure this even counts as a fringe theory as we know it; it's more of a synthesis of primary sources.  While it has some sources, I'd like to see more secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok for more sources This was our first WP article. We were about to include more independent citations, more references and  several somebody else results, when  the trial started and we stopped all!  I think that there is a difference between writing WG page and a fair scientific review of a important issue. In the last case what is is important is the content, that must be correct and the priorities of discoveries and aknowldgements that must be attributed fairly  and Paolosalucci (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC) accurately. In the issue " Phenomenology of  the rotation curve of spirals", that it is very important because it is generally agreed that it hides the very nature of the dark matter, I (+ collaborators)  contributed since 1986 to half of the results obtained in literature so far, to be on the shy side. Thus Stefania and I  started writing the page on WP with the results that I knew better. Of course  and I was proceeding to cover completely the issue (estimated 20% in lenght more, 15 references more and  bibliography 20% larger with secondary sources) by referring to  other somebody else work when the process started and I stopped allPaolosalucci (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC) It is obvious to me that a seriuos revision of this page is necessary!Paolosalucci (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to ask the admins first of all if it is possible that I can start working on the page urc and begin to make the changes indicated by you, in which case, if you will take into account the cancellation of the procedure of deletion?Stefania.deluca (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Somebody should perhaps read WP:COI and WP:YOURSELF. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you. Also read WP:BITE and, just on the off-chance it became relevant, avail yourself to WP:HARASS. WP:YOURSELF is completely irrelevant here, and there is null evidence that the two are not willing to respect our policies. Lastly, this is a deletion discussion, not the appropriate forum to discuss purported problems with user behavior. If you have evidence, present it in the appropriate forum. Paradoctor (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment and Question to WP experts  One moment! I am realising that WP may have a big  bug inside!. In many SPECIALIZED fields of science, that are booming with continous and frequent successes, basically, everyone who works in the field reaches important goals. Anyone who  reports the main results  of this  entire field must report (also ) about his/her results! On the other hand, let suppose that some one else "alien" to the emerging research  of this field, as WP would like, would write  the same report. The fact itself that he has nothing to bring forward of his work in this specialized field, where many get success means that he is a second class scientist. Do WP want tha the science article get written by journalists , students , ect or by whom ha descovered the reality which is profiling NOW under our eyes? To make me cristal clear I make a full Example. WP PAGE TOPIC : Computer simulations of galaxy formation in the hystory of Universe INTEREST BY SCIENTISTS: A LOT! INTEREST BY general public STILL a LOT ! REsults obtained in the field : Very very many ! Group of People in the world that work in this field < 15. Number of people that realistically can write this page without being ridicolusly unapt:  about 10-15. All these 15 have done something of importance for the topic that must be told to WP user? YES ! Moreover, How many references  the page  Computer simulations of galaxy formation in the hystory of Universe should have: AT LEAST 25 , better 40. If the writer of the page is not in any of the: the page is ridicoulus !!( In effect I realized , after I made such example, the the WP page on cosmological simulation and similiaria is a weak one ! And we are discussing of a  main issue of cosmology and where the financing often go ! So,  what happens for the big specilized fast-booming issues that can be usefully told to users only by leading scientist?       Paolosalucci (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * keep WP:GNG is passed. To the degree that this is WP:FRINGE it is passed too (multiple sources discussing it other than its promoter). The level of acceptance or not of the theory should be correctly described in the article, but that a topic is debated does not mean it should not be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * keep - passes GNG. If it's fringe, then it should be treated as such, but that's a separate matter. If there are WP:COI or WP:NPOV problems, those should obviously be addressed (via noticeboards if they can't be resolved at the article) but deletion isn't the way to go.


 * Weak keep. Probably passes WP:GNG. There are very severe WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems, but probably not quite enough for a WP:TNT solution. -- 120.23.23.27 (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple scholarly articles (specifically) on this subject have 100+ citations according to Web of Science. Pass of WP:GNG is obvious. It also shows that WP:FRINGE is not applicable. AfD is not the correct method to deal with any other serious issues (such as WP:COI and WP:NPOV) that the article may have.TR 11:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources proposed in support of keep
As far as ``external and independent`` sources, I wanted to point to these links and I would understand if they can be useful to conclude this motion of deletion. Notice that these sources are only those in printed ``BOOKS`` or ``Lectures`` or in PhD ``Thesis` that   refer/use/comment  the results of the Universal Rotation Curve of Persic, Salucci and Stel 1996. Notices that in Physics, sometimes a) BOOK is it a Proceeding of a Conference, that has many editors and several contributors, each one with a  different review paper.

``Not shown here`` the 850 citations that PSS has in refereed journals of this paper and the several thousands citations in referreed papers that these 850  papers have for their  use of the URC.Paolosalucci (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The first book I clicked on turned out to be a research article within a book of research articles. If someone could highlight which of the English citations below are mainstream textbooks, that would be very helpful to me!  I think the strongest support for this Wikipedia article would be non-trivial mentions of universal rotation curves in mainstream textbooks.  Leegrc (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are wrong. Sometime publishers of scientific journals make a whole issue on a single argument and a single authors. But this one, from Matteucci is just one proofs. If you do no like it take another. The point being that in addition to 1500 citations that papers on the URC has, there are many tenths of citations in books, phd thesis  and on web pages.  Paolosalucci (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Paolosalucci (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my sloppy choice of words. Matteucci is not what I was talking about.  I clicked on one in the list randomly, "Properties of dark matter haloes F Combes - New Astronomy Reviews, 2002 - Elsevier", and that one was the one that was a book of research articles.  I was hoping for something less like a journal.  Are any of these a textbook?  Are any of these a popular read? Leegrc (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * no problem ! almost all of these are textbooks or invited reviews of important scintists published somewhere,  that students, but also colleagues, read to learn a particular issue. Of course this is a specialized issue when interviewed by popular prees I and other may hint to the rotation curves (crime scene), but often the interest of people is on the dark matter (the culprit)!!Paolosalucci (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Books
Paolosalucci (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * F Matteucci 2003 The chemical evolution of the Galaxy
 * The enigma of the dark matter Shaaban Khalil, C Munoz - Contemporary physics, 2002 - Taylor & Francis
 * Properties of dark matter haloes F Combes - New Astronomy Reviews, 2002 - Elsevier
 * TASI lectures: Cosmology for string theorists SM Carroll Strings, Branes and Gravity TASI 99, 2001
 * Dark Matter M Srednicki - The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields, 2000 - Springer
 * Nuclear-to-disk rotation curves and mass-to-luminosity ratio in galaxies Y Sofue - Advances in Space Research, 1999 - Elsevier
 * An introduction to cosmology MHG Tytgat - 2008 European School of High-Energy Physics, 2009
 * (Russian, English version) Идеи ЯБ Зельдовича и современная космология Бранса—Дикке ИД Новиков, АА Шацкий, СО Алексеев… - Успехи физических …, 2014,
 * On the Generation of the Hubble Sequence Through an Internal Secular Dynamical Process X Zhang - 2004 - Springer
 * KA Olive 2003 TASI lectures on dark matter
 * Colliders and cosmology - KA Olive - The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields 59: 269–295, 2009 - Springer; ; Expanded version: ; Cited by 6 Web of Science: 3
 * Dark matter and dark matter candidates; KA Olive - Advances in Space Research, 2008 - Elsevier
 * Concluding Remarks for Dark 2000 KA Olive - Dark Matter in Astro-and Particle Physics, 2001
 * The violent Universe: the Big Bang KA Olive - 2010

Non-English sources

 * (Chinese) Tully-Fisher 关系之研究进展 赵君亮 - 天文学进展 Progress in Astronomy volume 28 issue 2 June 2010
 * Tully-Fisher 关系(TF 关系) 对于宇宙距离尺度和星系演化研究具 有重要意义. 对TF
 * 关系的发现史和嗣后的研究进展做了简要的评述, 包括红外波段的TF 关系, 星系倾角问题,
 * 影响TF 关系的若干因素, 透镜星系的TF 关系, 重子TF 关系, TF 关 系的宇宙学演化等.


 * (Chinese) 星系自转曲线之观测研究进展 Progress in Astronomy volume 31 issue 2 May 2013;
 * 赵君亮 - 天文学进展, 2013
 * 系自转曲线测定对星系天文学研究有着重要的意义. 现己发现, 除旋 涡星系外,
 * 其他类别的河外星系也有自转运动, 但自转曲线的特征有所不同. 自 转曲线研究的内容颇为丰富,
 * 如是否存在普适自转曲线, 星系团环境对成员星系运动特征的可能影 响, 星系物质转动速度的*...*


 * (French) RAPPORT DE STAGE La rotation des galaxies spirales et le probl eme de la masse manquante M el BOURGOIN - 1997
 * (German) Über den Ursprung des Universums: das Problem der Singularität W Priester - 1995 - Springer
 * (Portuguese) Evolução de estruturas primordiais HTCM Souza - 2007
 * (Russian) И ЭЛЕМЕНТАРНЫЕ ЧАСТИЦЫ, ИЛИ НЕБЕСНЫЕ ТАЙНЫ
 * AД Долгов - Физика элементарных частиц и атомного ядра, 2012 - n3w4lit.jinr.ru
 * За последние 30 лет прошлого века были установлены две великих фундаментальных
 * теории, которые находятся в блестящем согласии с экспериментом и
 * астрономическими наблюдениями, за исключением нескольких «небольших *...*


 * (Russian) Поверхностная фотометрия галактик ВП Решетников - СПб.: СПбГУ, 2003
 * (Russian) Рецензенты: д-р физ.-мат. наук, проф. ВА Гаген-Торн (С.-Петерб. гос. ун-т), д-р физ.-мат. наук ОК Сильченко (Моск. гос. ун-т) ВП Решетников

Theses

 * INDIRECT SEARCH OF DARK MATTER IN THE HALOS OF GALAXIES Erica Bisesi - 2007
 * Cosmology meets condensed matter Mark N. Brook 2010
 * Particle Physics and Cosmology in Supersymmetric Models DE Morrissey - 2005
 * Quintessence Cosmology SG Schäfer - 2004
 * Probing Bulk Flows with Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curves and the Tully-Fisher Relation Josh Simon - 1998
 * ブレイン衝突とストリング宇宙論への応用 ("Colliding branes and its application to string cosmology")
 * 高水裕一 - 2007
 * 超新星や宇宙背景輻射などの詳細な観測から, 宇宙年齢, 現在の宇 宙のエネルギー密度などが
 * 正確にわかってきた. 驚くべきは, その構成要素として宇宙は我々 が通常知っているものでは説明
 * できないもので満たされていることである. 現在の宇宙は, 一様等 方時空の仮定に基づく*...*


 * (Chinese) 星系大小分布的统计研究
 * 沈世银 - 2003
 * 本文用了Sloan 数天计划(SDSS) 得到的个140,000 个星系的本系统 的研了星系的大小分布及其
 * 对光度恒星和星系形态的关系SDSS 的大本数使得本文得到了高度的 统计果对于给定形态的
 * 星系在给定光度或恒星处其大小的分布好的遵从对数态函数此可由其 R 和散σlnR 个参数加定


 * (German) Die Problematik der Bestimmung der Expansionsrate des Kosmos M Soika, E Forschung
 * (Portuguese) Algebra de Rainich Generalizada e Soluçoes do Tipo Cordas Cósmicas em Teorias Escalares-Tensoriais da Gravitaçao ML Costa - 2006
 * (Portuguese) Populaçoes e evoluçao do bojo e regiao central da Galáxia OC Moraes

Stefania.deluca (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Paolosalucci (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2014 (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.