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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, published in vanity press –Joke 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Joke 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research and self-promotion. --Christopher Thomas 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, creator's userpage explain's that it's his book that contains this info. Grandmasterka 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Royal Blue 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 Thomas 02:22, 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

• Delete as per royboycrashfan. Blnguyen 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. this is very disturbing.,,,,,Ariele 03:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (Redirect to Empty Nest... nah, Richard Mulligan wouldn't be too thrilled about that.) --Kinu 05:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per nom. Also no relevant Google hits for "Empty Nest" and "Big Bang" together.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 13, 2006, 07:25 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --ScienceApologist 15:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Boderline ((nonsense)) Avi 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Empty nest syndrome Empty Nest (TV show) per Ikkyu. I will add some disambiguation language to the start of that article for anyone looking for Empty nest syndrome TMS63112 18:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. If this ever gets in a peer-reviewed publication I'll change my mind. —rodii 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Empty nest syndrome per TMS63112. Reasonable search term for that article. --Allen 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense and Redirect to Empty nest syndrome as above. -- Mithent 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense (or possible redirect). Cedars 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then redirect to Empty nest syndrome or Empty Nest (TV show); or make a disambig out of it. Ikkyu2 08:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Empty Nest. Delete current content as original research. dbtfz^talk 06:35, 17 February 2006 (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.