- 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 no consensus. I would strongly suggest re-AfDing this if it hasn't been improved in the near future, but at this time there is no consensus to delete the article. Daniel 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Universe Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not suitable for an encyclopedia. This is more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, with a fair amount of argumentation, opinion, and discourse. It substantially promotes the author's own views, including his own original cosmological model, so there is a conflict of interest. Note that at least part of User:Ranzan's research has been published in a conference proceeding, but if it's truly notable it should be described in its own page rather than an essay arguing for it. The subject matter of the page tends to duplicate cosmology, physical cosmology, timeline of cosmology, etc. I propose that any useful general material should be merged into one of these articles, and that Ranzan would be welcome to create a List of cosmological models without the essay-like material. Reuben 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR of the silliest kind, one of the silliest, most stupid thing I have ever read on Wikipedia, ever. -- Ekjon Lok 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh you know how to read? What a surprise. Just because you dont understand the words in the article, doesn't mean it is the one that is stupid. And calling someones work "stupid" doesn't mean you'll become smarter. M.V.E.i. 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral It doesn't look silly or stupid to me, just overwrought. SolidPlaid 23:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it with the new name. SolidPlaid 00:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's certainly nothing wrong with a historical overview of universe models. It really doesn't fit in the cosmology pages, with their present-day emphasis. This page includes religious and philisophical models, which wouldn't appear on a strictly scientific article. And since truly scientific models would rule out pre-modern ideas, there's room for an article like this. If the writing on this page is original research, it needs to be edited, not deleted. There are many books on the history of science that discuss this very topic, and college courses teach it, so someone out there should be able to clean up the page where necessary. MarkBul 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, conditional for now. If someone especially versed can come in an clean it up--it reads as borderline OR as I read it, but ample sourcing--it could be fine. Otherwise, one of us can renominate in 2-4 months time. • Lawrence Cohen 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if reorganized--the table of models is useful--the essay on their fundamental significance is not appropriate for WP. DGG (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean the well written table. Some of the essay part needs to be trimmed and cleaned up and formatted properly. The cellular part looks like original research, and it isn't clearly explained. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I see you are working on Models of the universe now. I suggest it should be at History of cosmology. Models of the universe should really be a redirect to cosmology, which does include religious and philosophical cosmologies as well as physical cosmology. --Reuben 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and clean as per MarkBul. RainbowOfLight Talk 11:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up, per MarkBul. Is interesting article which adds to the cosmology articles. --George100 15:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep salvageable. JJL 17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I dont think that the fact that some people dont understand some of the material is a reason to vote delete. For every article youcould find a few people who are not interested in it's content. Now lets judge it according to the facts. Written very good. A real nice use of Wikitables by the way. Very, Very, Very serious references. Now notability. An important theme, and interesting theme, and a definitly must stay in Wikipedia. I also don't see any need for a cleanup. One of the most, not smart, nominations i have ever seen. M.V.E.i. 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I really cannot see what makes this article "Not suitable for an encyclopedia". I think it's a great piece of work. Bogdan 22:06, 29 September 2007 (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.