Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle physics in 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 Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Particle physics in cosmology

Does not establish WP:NOTE. Could easily be merged with cosmology until more content is available. Padillah (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you think the article could be merged or redirected, you could just go and do that, and no need for an AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I totally agree. I planned to write it as a (much?) larger article, but forgot about it... (sorry). I'll try to expand it really soon, and if I don't - feel free to delete it. What do you say? Dan Gluck (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I added a "Further reading" section (3 books, 1 journal article) but when someone familiar with the topic wants to expand the main article, there's plenty of source material: 80,800 Ghits and 1821 hits on Google Book Search . Coffee4me (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is clearly notable, and stubbiness is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I have started to expand the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is nothing wrong with the stub, except for a bit of POV, but that can be remedied and the article can be expanded easily. Disclosure: I am a scientist with a J.D. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.