Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep . - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory

There is no such theory, and therefore no need for an article of this title. Also, the journal article being alluded to is not correctly described. (The article is famous for predicting the cosmic microwave background, not Big Bang nucleosynthesis.) --EMS | Talk 14:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. There is indeed a theory, although I've never heard it described this way -- more of interest to historians of scientists than to scientists. EMS is incorrect; the ABG paper is indeed the first description of nucleosynthesis (despite incorrect information on the internet.) Here is the original article: [1], Phys. Rev. 73, 803–804 (1948), The Origin of Chemical Elements. I suggest, EMS, instead of trying to speedy delete this article, you try to improve it. Sdedeo 15:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep [2] or Merge into Nucleosynthesis. --Pjacobi 15:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge into nucleosynthesis, but don't lose the info about where the name came from. DS 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge / redirect. Seems legitimate. Trollderella 15:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and do not merge. It is an important paper, the first to establish that the Big Bang could explain the observed ratio of H to He in the universe. The story behind it is also interesting. It deserves to be expanded into a meaningful article in its own right. Dragons flight 16:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - should be expanded; it is certainly notable. But in its current form, merge/redirect appropriate. -- WCFrancis 16:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I see this as an impotant step in the development of Big Bang theory, not a theory in it's own right. I also see it as deserving better than this. If people want to keep it, then fine. However, at the least let's rename from "... theory" to "... paper". --EMS | Talk 18:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. EMS, I agree. I'd be in favour of a "merge" to the rest of the nucleosynthesis. Presumably because of a single sci.physics.research post, people think it refers to the CMB, and it would be good to have the correct information in the wiki. Yours, Sdedeo 19:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (seems reasonable to merge). This has been around a long time now - I've come across it a couple of time over the years. Dlyons493 21:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a very important paper and a well known anecdote. Renaming to paper instead of theory would make sense. I oppose merging, because this article really deserves to be given the chance to be expanded. ManoaChild 22:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's inaccurate, edit it! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Move to close this VfD - I'm glad to have brought up the issue and called people's attention to this even if the consensus did not turn out the way I expected. However, I think that we can stick a fork into this VfD: it's done. --EMS | Talk 02:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — I've heard of this one. I also heard a rumor that Hans Bethe was reportedly a little irked at having his name attached to a paper in which he wasn't involved just to served as a pun. :) — RJH 18:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to big bang nucleosynthesis Joke137 13:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, not that it matters any more. This is one of those examples where a VfD results in a mediocre page being improved until it is actually a worthy read.–Joke137 03:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep

I just linked this article in to the Big Bang entry because someone changed "expansion and evolution" of the universe, there, to refer to expansion only. There are a lot of expanding models (for example an unstable static Einstein universe) (positive cosmo constant) perturbed so as to expand, or a de Sitter universe. The Big Bang was clinched by the CBR, but the near uniform primordial element abundance is a very strong point. Deleting this classic entry is like deleting Christopher Marlowe because Shakespeare eclipsed him. Pdn 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.