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 delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma-Redshift Cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD. This subject is essentially 100% in violation of WP:FRINGE#Independent sources and original research prohibitions. There are no reliable sources which even acknowledge "Plasma-Redshift Cosmology" let alone treat it seriously. jps (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient sources for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Even if there were reliable sources on this topic, the (unreliable, existing) sources don't seem to agree on the mechanism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Evidence of evading the spirit of WP:NPOV]. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under development and several criticisms are mistaken or red-herring. Critics may represent WP:Systemic Bias Orrerysky (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd consider userfication if there were any chance of there being something there. I don't see anything there now, but if someone can find something.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable and FRINGE. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's under development. Johnnyc (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have repeatedly asked the creator of the article which of the sources cited therein establish notability, i.e. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but have had no answer - accordingly, I have to assume that there aren't any. Certainly there seems to be little evidence of coverage of the subject beyond Brynjolfsson's primary-source material, and the odd passing mention in coverage of fringe cosmology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have found evidence that Orrerysky is clearly ignoring WP:GF and is working to promote his views/opinions WP:V against Wikipedia policies. I.e As exampled in my response to Talk:Plasma-Redshift_Cosmology "Unrelated Statements 2". The many assertions against this whole article are clearly unsupported, even when Orrerysky has the adequate opportunity to add relevant references. AndyTheGrump support for deletion of this article are verifiable. WP:Systemic Bias claimed by Orrerysky to "Critics" above, also applies to directly him. Avoiding WP:GF is enough evidence to delete this entire page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: off-wiki canvassing is happening here. Woodroar (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2013 (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.