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.
Keep not just because already published by Penta Publishing, and discussed in media, but not in conflict with the heading under which it is presented: "Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang." I can understand that scientific standards are highest when presenting information, yet Wikipedia has its own standards for presenting information; they have not been violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredrickS (talk • contribs) on 02:10, 13 February 2006
See Wikipedia:Verifiability for details on why this is not a suitable reference for the Big Bang article (self-published material is only useful as a reference for articles about the published material itself). If you want to make a case for it being a noteworthy or important publication (per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Importance), then please provide links to other sources that talk about your book. While neither "notability" nor "importance" is a rules-mandated requirement for an article's existence, you'll have a much easier time getting "keep" votes if you can demonstrate them. --Christopher Thomas02:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, delete the page. Hopefully I'll can get it back on once more is published about the idea. Thank you for your time. Good gatekeeping! FredrickS
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.