Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self creation cosmology

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 No consensus, no prejudice against renominting this in the near future if the concerns of the voters here are not addressed (for example, the NPOV concerns). Deathphoenix ʕ 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self creation cosmology

This article was created by the author to advance his own alternative cosmology in violation of vanity regulations. While he has published some of his work, this is essentially original research as there is really no one in the field who recognizes this as a viable theory. --ScienceApologist 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomNeutral for now, per comments below. Looking at the History page, it seems that the author is essentially the sole contributor, and the primary references are mostly his own published work. I think an encyclopedia in general, and WP in particular, cannot have the author of a theory writing the article about it, as it eliminates the role of neutral evaluators. Crum375 22:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Looks a lot more plausible than most "fringe" theories, but still OR. If he's right, the Nobel Committee will doubtless endorse his notability. Tevildo 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable enough. 600 hits on google, and I would expect Phys Rev level references for a theory like this. --Philosophus ^T 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If "Google hits" are to be the measure of notability then obviously some other Wikipedia articles ought to be deleted as well. As an exercise I repeatedly hit the "Random Article" navigation button and Googled for those with unusual subjects. About one third of the hits had low Google scores, viz: 23,31,644,507,31, 823 and 17. (I will provide the page titles if requested). What is the standard for sufficient notability and is it going to be enforced consistently? Garthbarber 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable original research. --Coredesat 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, simply because it is published doesn't make it notable.--Nick Y. 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The designation "vanity regulations" that are allegedly "violated" is made up by nominator. These are guidelines that are meant to help us determine when something is a vanity article. In this case, even though written by the originator of the theory, I don't think it qualifies as such. Editors are strongly discouraged from writing about their own work, but there is no rule forbidding this, and it does not automatically disqualify the article. The search term ["self creation cosmology" OR "self creation cosmologies" -wikipedia -answers.com] gets 131 unique Google hits, and 59 Google scholar citations. The article is referenced and written from a reasonably neutral point of view, and might have been written by anyone sufficiently familiar with this work. --Lambiam^Talk 06:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even without WP:VAIN, I believe it still fails WP:NN (lack of verifiable third party references to assert notability), WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (intrinsically) and violates WP:NOT A7. (Neutral, have not read article) --DaveG12345 11:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (See below for updated comment) --DaveG12345 10:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see the issue here as vanity. It is true that WP does not absolutely forbid an author writing or contributing to an article about himself or his own work, but the only exclusion that I would see for that is when the work is notable, has been widely reviewed and accepted by neutral parties elsewhere and the author, say, wants to make corrections in the article (since obviously he would know the subject matter best). In this case, however, I cannot find any objective reviews, wide acceptance or even awareness in the published literature of this work. If the article is kept, it would be a clear case of WP itself promoting a non-notable subject that was not properly reviewed by neutral 3rd parties, which I believe goes against the basic principles of WP's mission. Crum375 13:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, you wrote per nom, which suggested that you agreed with nominator's deletion rationale: "violation" of "vanity regulations" and "essentially original research". No reference there to notability. To start with the OR issue: if someone else had written the article, just reporting on this theory, it would not have qualified as OR. Why should it become OR when the reporter happens to be the originator of the theory? Then, why should the work "have been accepted by neutral parties elsewhere"? We have plenty of articles on theories for which this does not hold. As long as our reporting is neutral, it is fine. The present article does not attempt to suggest that the theory is widely accepted. On the contrary, it is pretty obvious, just from the text of the article, that the theory has not been widely accepted. In that sense, the reporting is quite neutral. The text also makes clear that the theory has unsolved problems. When the publications were peer reviewed, the reviewers (if they did their job) at least made sure that this was scientifically respectable, which includes distinguishing speculation as fact, not glossing over contrary evidence, and acknowledging other relevenat work. I did not try to trace the 60 or so scientific citations, but expect that among those some contain a critical review. It's not our business as Wikipedia to distinguish "good" theories and filter out the "bad" ones. If others claim a theory is bad, we report on that, within reason. --Lambiam^Talk 18:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding my 'per nom' statement, I guess I was relying on this aspect of vanity: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them."

In my subsequent comment, I continued the argument that even if we ignore the vanity aspects, we still have the issue of original work and lack or reliable 3rd party evaluation. I agree with you fully that WP should not judge technical merit of the actual subject, but we should judge the merit of the evaluators of the subject, since we can only accept reliable sources, and we must be able to judge reliability. In this case, I don't see any reliable, objective, neutral source that has evaluated this subject. If no such source can be found, then this article becomes primary or secondary at best, not the required tertiary level article that is needed for WP encyclopedic inclusion. Are there other articles in WP that don't pass these tests? More than likely, but it's our collective job to find them and either fix them up or delete them. Crum375 19:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Take for example Conformal field theory. If there is a reliable, objective, neutral source that has "evaluated" this theory (or, rather, family of theories), our article does not mention it. I won't recommend deleting it, though; I'm confident the article could be "fixed up" by someone who has access to a good physics library and the requisite background to understand what they're reading. I think that the same holds for the subject of this article, what with sixty-odd citations. And I think that "evaluation" is not really necessary, at least not as I understand the term: how would one evaluate string theory? It's not even wrong! --Lambiam^Talk 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If we have any neutral reviewers, who are generally knowledgeable in the field of the the subject, who read and critique the subject paper (like typical peer reviewers) and the publisher of a reputable journal (in the scientific case) publishes the paper after that review, I would consider it properly reviewed by a reliable source. The reviewers do not necessarily have to agree with the author's position or results - they can provide a counter-position if they feel necessary. But if the publisher goes ahead after that peer review, and takes a chance on the reputation of the publishing house, then it becomes a legitimate secondary source. Then, assuming the journal has sufficient circulation to be notable, we as WP can pick up the article at the tertiary level. If we shortcut that process by accepting an article that did not undergo the peer review, then WP would stop being an encyclopedia IMO. Again, the issue is not merit per se, it is the need for WP to see some reputable publisher with neutral and capable reviewers review and publish the article before we do. In the case of String Theory, if hypothetically it just came out yesterday, WP would not and should not be the first to publish it, as tempting as it may seem. Crum375 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't General Relativity and Gravitation a peer-reviewed journal? And Astrophysics and Space Science? --Lambiam^Talk 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are, good point. I still feel queasy about letting the inventor write the article per above, and it is, by definition original work, but I guess these apparent reviews do mitigate the situation somewhat. I did run into this discussion, written by Eric Lerner, which raises interesting issues about peer review in general, which would apply to everyone but more so in complex new theories. Crum375 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of "original research" is too wide. "Original research" as anathema on Wikipedia means that Wikipedia is used as the medium to introduce and publish a new theory. But here we have a report on a theory that other sources have published before. These sources are "reliable" according to the criteria used on Wikipedia. Although the subject of the article is research that is arguably original, the article itself is not "original research".

As to the reliability of the peer review system, the Schön scandal involved fraud in experimental physics, which is an entirely different matter. Here we have theoretical physics, where there is the Bogdanov affair. A published paper in this area might be a hoax, but it can hardly be fraud, since there are no lab reports or anything: all is in the open. But reviewers may fail to notice unbridged gaps or improper appeals to theorems. In any case, we as Wikipedians should not attempt to correct or outguess the experts who do the peer review. Everyone knows or should know that the fact that a statement is published in a peer-reviewed medium does not make it true. --Lambiam^Talk 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree in general with all your points. My main concern is that with pure theory, based on math and assumptions that are not manifestly self evident (I would assume to most people), it is quite possible that there are errors in the derivation and hence the results could be quite flawed. Of course this is always true, but more so when it seems that less eyes and brains have digested and seriously critiqued the contents. I think an encycopedia, as a tertiary source, should steer clear of these scenarios and should strive as much as possible to have a neutral person (ideally persons) presenting the article. In this specific case we have the original author/inventor presenting, which is fraught with risks, even if we assume (as I do by default) best intentions, integrity and honesty. Crum375 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It has enough of a non-arxiv paper trail to at least deserve mention. Wikipedia is not paper. The article itself seems tolerable to me as far as neutality, as it's careful to describe SCC as an unconfirmed model, as opposed to established fact. Helpful elements would be the addition of a criticism/reception section providing a neutral sample of responses to the SCC papers, and modification of the reference list so that, in addition to papers by other parties, only the most important papers of the author's are listed (full publications list can be linked off-site, as I'm sure the author has a list hosted somewhere). --Christopher Thomas 23:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As an off shoot of Brans-Dicke Theory it will only be seen by people who can think for themselves. The "steady state" related cosmology pages are generally not as developed as this. I got to Brans-Dicke which was hailed as a leading competitor to general relativity, now that's a real vanity infringment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.238.183 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

This is 154.20.238.183 (talk • contribs)'s second edit. --Christopher Thomas 04:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As the author I take issue with the original comment that "there is really no one in the field who recognizes this as a viable theory." I include the full other-author citation list so you can decide on the veracity of this statement. Why not wait until the result of the Gravity Probe B geodetic precession is published (April 2007) until deciding whether to delete it or not?

1. Abdel-Rahman, A.M.M. :1992, Astrophysics and Space Science 189, 1. Singularity-free self-creation cosmology.

2. Abdussattar & Vishwakarma, R. G. : 1997, Classical and Quantum Gravity 14 pp 945-953 Some FRW models with variable G and Λ.

3. Blaschke, D. & Dabrowski, M: 2004, arXiv:hep-th/0407078 Conformal relativity versus Brans-Dicke and superstring theories.

4. Brans, C.H. :1987, Gen Relativ Gravit.19, 949. Consistency of field equations in self-creation cosmologies.

5. Dabrowski, M., Denkiewicz, T. & Blaschke, D. arXiv:hep-th/0507068 The conformal status of ω = −3/2 Brans-Dicke cosmology.

6. Maharaj, S.D. & Beesham, A. : 1988, Astrophysics and Space Science 140, 1. The vacuum Friedmann-type solutions in Barber’s theory of gravitation.

7. Mohanty, G. & Mishra, B. : 2002, Astrophysics and Space Science 281,3. Vacuum cosmological models in Einstein and Barber theories.

8. Mohanty, G. & Mishra, B. : 2001, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 26, pgs 71 – 82. Dissipation of general viscous fluid distribution in Einstein and Barber theories.

9. Mohanty, G. & Mishra, B. & Biswal, A.K. : 2002, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics 52, 12. pp 1289-1296 Cosmological Models in Barber’s Second Self-Creation Theory

10. Mohanty, G. Sahu, R.C. & Panigrahi, U.K. : 2002, Astrophysics and Space Science 281, 3. Exact Bianchi Type-I cosmological model in modified theory of General Relativity.

11. Mohanty, G., Sahu, R.C. & Panigrahi, U.K. : 2003, Astrophysics and Space Science 284, 3. Micro and Macro Cosmological Model in Barber’s Second Self-Creation Theory.

12. Mohanty, G. & Sahu, S.K. 2004, Astrophysics and Space Science 291 (1): 75-83. Bianchi type-I cosmological effective stiff fluid model in Saez and Ballester theory

13. Panigrahi, U.K & Sahu, R.C. :2003, Theoret. Appl. Mech., Vol.30, No.3, pp.163-175. Plane symmetric cosmological micro model in modified theory of Einstein’s general relativity

14. Panigrahi, U.K & Sahu, R.C. :2004, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics 54 (5): 543-551. Plane Symmetric Cosmological Macro Models in Self-creation Theory of Gravitation

15. Pimentel, L.O. : 1985, Astrophysics and Space Science 116, 2. Exact self-creation cosmological solutions.

16. Pradhan A. & Pandey H.R. : 2002, International Journal of Modern Physics D, arXiv:gr-c/0207027 v1 4 Jul 2002. Bulk viscous cosmological models in Barber’s second Self Creation Theory.

17. Pradhan A. & Vishwakarma, A. K. : 2002, International Journal of Modern Physics D, Vol. 11, No. 8, 1195-1207. LRS Bianchi Type-I Cosmological Models in Barber’s Second Self Creation Theory.

18. Rahman, A.M.M. & Adbel. : 1993, Astrophysics and Space Science 189,1. Singularity-free Self-Creation Cosmology.

19. Ram, S. & Singh, CP. : 1998a, Astrophysics and Space Science 257, 1.Early universe in self-creation cosmology.

20. Ram, S. & Singh, CP. : 1998b, Astrophysics and Space Science 257, 2.Anisotropic bianchi type-II cosmological models in self-creation cosmology.

21. Reddy, D.R.K. : 1987a, Astrophysics and Space Science 132, 2. Vacuum model in self-creation cosmology.

22. Reddy, D.R.K. : 1987b, Astrophysics and Space Science 132, 2. Bianchi type-I vacuum model in self-creation cosmology.

23. Reddy, D.R.K. : 1987c, Astrophysics and Space Science 133, 1. Vacuum Friedmann model in self-creation cosmology.

24. Reddy, D.R.K. : 1987d, Astrophysics and Space Science 133, 2. Bianchi type-I universe filled with disordered radiation in self-creation cosmology.

25. Reddy, D.R.K. : 1988, Astrophysics and Space Science 140, 1. Birkhoff’s theorem in a conformally-invariant scalar field theory

26. Reddy, D.R.K., Avadhanulu, M.B. & Venkateswarlu, R. : 1987, Astrophysics and Space Science 134, 1. Birkhoff-type theorem for electromagnetic-fields in self-creation cosmology

27. Reddy, D.R.K., Avadhanulu, M.B. & Venkateswarlu, R. : 1988 Astrophysics and Space Science 141, 1. A static conformally-flat vacuum model in self-creation cosmology.

28. Reddy, D.R.K. & Venkateswarlu, R. : 1987, Astrophysics and Space Science 135, 2, p. 287-290. An anisotropic cosmological model in a scalar-tensor theory of gravitation

29. Reddy, D.R.K. & Venkateswarlu, R. : 1988, Astrophysics and Space Science 147, 1. Nonexistence of static conformally-flat solutions in selfcreation cosmology.

30. Reddy, D.R.K. & Venkateswarlu, R. : 1989, Astrophysics and Space Science 155, 1. Bianchi type-VI models in self-creation cosmology.

31. Sahu, R.C. & Panigrahi, U.K. :2003, Astrophysics and Space Science Forthcoming papers. Bianchi Type-1 vacuum models in modified theory of general relativity.

32. Sanyasiraju, Y.V.S.S. & Rao, V.U.M. : 1992, Astrophysics and Space Science 189, 1. Exact bianchi-type-VIII and Bianchi-type-IX models in the presence of the self-creation theory of cosmology.

33. Shanthi, K. & Rao, V.U.M. : 1991, Astrophysics and Space Science 179,1. Bianchi type-II and type-III models in self-creation cosmology.

34. Singh, T., Singh, T. & Srivastava, O.P. : 1987, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 26, 9. Birkhoff theorem in self-creation cosmology.

35. Singh, T. & Singh, T. :1984, Astrophysics and Space Science 102, 1. Some general results in self-creation cosmologies.

36. Singh, T. : 1986, Journal of Mathematical Sciences 27, 4. Birkhoff-type theorem in self-creation cosmology.

37. Singh, T. : 1989, Astrophysics and Space Science 152, 1. Static vacuum fields in self-creation cosmology.

38. Soleng, Harald H. : 1987a, Astrophysics and Space Science 138, 1. A note on vacuum self-creation cosmological models.

39. Soleng, Harald H. : 1987b, Astrophysics and Space Science 139, 1. Self-creation cosmological solutions.

40. Tiwari, S.C.: 1989 1990 Phy. Lett. A, 142, 8-9, p. 460-464. Scalar field in gravitational theory

41. Venkateswarlu, R. & Pavan Kumar K.: 2006, Astrophysics and Space Science 301, 1-4. Higher Dimensional FRW Cosmological Models in Self-Creation Theory

42. Venkateswarlu, R. & Reddy, D.R.K. : 1988, Astrophysics and Space Science 150, 2. Plane-symmetric vacuum in self-creation cosmology.

43. Venkateswarlu, R. & Reddy, D.R.K. : 1989a, Astrophysics and Space Science 151, 1. Vacuum Friedmann models in self-creation cosmology.

44. Venkateswarlu, R. & Reddy, D.R.K. : 1989b, Astrophysics and Space Science 151, 2. Bianchi type-V radiating model in self-creation cosmology.

45. Venkateswarlu, R. & Reddy, : 1989c, Astrophysics and Space Science 152, 2. An anisotropic cosmological model in self-creation cosmology.

46. Venkateswarlu, R. & Reddy, : 1989d, Astrophysics and Space Science 161, pg125. Vacuum Bianchi type V and VI(0) cosmological models in a new scalar-tensor theory of gravitation.

47. Venkateswarlu, R. & Reddy, : 1989e, Astrophysics and Space Science 159, pg. 173. On Birkhoff’s theorem in Bergmann-Wagoner theory

48. Venkateswarlu, R. & Reddy, : 1989f, Astrophysics and Space Science 155, pg. 135. Bianchi type-VI(0) models in self-creation cosmology.

49. Venkateswarlu, R. & Reddy, D.R.K. : 1990, Astrophysics and Space Science 168, 2. Bianchi type-I models in self-creation theory of gravitation.

50. Wolf, C.: 1986, 1986, PhyS...34..193W Non-conservative gravitation and Kaluza Klein cosmology

51. Wolf, C.: 1988, Astronomische Nachrichten 309, 3 pgs.173-175. Higher order curvature terms in theories with creation.

52. Wolf, C.: 1988, PhyS...38..129W Can inflation take place in a closed universe admitting creation?

53. Wolf, C.: 1988, Phy.Lett. A, 132, 4, p. 151-153 dispersive effects in scalar-electromagnetic propagation

54. Wolf, C.: 1990 Phy. Lett. A, 145, 8-9, p. 413-417 Phenomenological dispersive effects in scalar, pseudoscalar, electromagnetic propagation

55. Wolf, C.: 1992 Astronomische Nachrichten 313, 3, p. 133-137 Looking for a massive KeV pseudo-scalar in gamma ray bursts Garthbarber 08:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This list feels like vanity, doesn't it? --ScienceApologist 08:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No - it is establishing the fact of the matter concerning your statement: "there is really no one in the field who recognizes this as a viable theory." . Garthbarber 14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 09:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and maybe tag for cleanup (NPOV). I have been tracking this discussion, and a thematically similar one above for Dynamic Universe. Writing about your own research on WP is considered a bad idea, but this topic seems to merit a presence on WP in terms of notability, its NPOV aspect needs work but that isn't grounds for deletion. Original research that, e.g., proposes that the universe was created by a goblin, is probably the target of WP:NOT A3, rather than this. Assuming the maths are correct, I don't think it's possible to write biased equations. The article could benefit from more exposition on its significance for non-math-heads. --DaveG12345 10:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment NPOV tag added by Crum375 (see below) --DaveG12345 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to Garthbarber: You seem to have a misunderstanding about WP inclusion criteria. You say we should "wait until the result of the Gravity Probe B geodetic precession is published (April 2007) until deciding". This is totally immaterial. Nowhere in WP policies are we to judge technical merit or base inclusion directly on results of experiments. Your 3rd party reference does seem OK, and seems to establish both notability and secondary sourcing. My main concern is with the fact that by you presenting the work here essentially exclusively, it constitutes original work, and to some extent vanity, which are frowned upon, though are not absolute barriers to acceptability. Neutrality also becomes an issue, in principle, when the inventor is the sole author of the article. It would have been so much better from WP's perspective if a colleague could have presented the work, with you providing critique and correcting errors. Crum375 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Re: waiting until April 2007, as suggested above by Garthbarber: a (hypothetical) article X about an unnotable topic that then asked us to wait until the topic became verifiably notable at some future time would probably fail WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I interpret WP policy as "delete until it really is notable" in such cases, not "wait and see". --DaveG12345 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Re: waiting until April 2007. I understand and agree and have scored through that comment. Garthbarber 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable theory; don't know about the "vanity" part, but nobody, but nobody, talks about this "theory" in the community. Sdedeo (tips) 13:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. As a point of information: one quote, from: Dabrowski, M., Denkiewicz, T. & Blaschke, D. arXiv:hep-th/0507068 "The conformal status of ω = -3/2 Brans-Dicke cosmology", last updated January 2006. "Similar ideas have been developed in yet another modification of general relativity called Self Creation Cosmology [18] in which the dark energy problem together with a series of other cosmological problems including Pioneer spacecraft puzzle [19]have been studied" Garthbarber 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Being mentioned once by a colleague does not make your theory notable. Sdedeo (tips) 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I was not suggesting it did, but does not the fact that three authors, who I do not know personally, saw fit to include my work in their eprint belie your statement that: "but nobody, but nobody, talks about this "theory" in the community"? If you had said: "Not many people in the community talk about this theory" I would agree with you. Garthbarber 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ambivalent keep. While I agree in principle with most of the above delete remarks, in practice on Wikipedia it is really hard to delete articles about non-notable crackpot theories. So why delete an article about a non-crackpot but fringe theory with a real publication record? I think instead the article ideally ought to be cleaned up by someone to conform with NPOV. Although I am realistic about the chances of that actually happening, I still can't support its outright deletion. –Joke 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have been aware of this for some time and have expressed concern about the "conflict of interest" inherent in Garth writing about his own research. I haven't mustered interest/time/energy to get hold of original sources and study them so I can form my own opinion about whether his description violates WP:NPOV, but I do have the superficial impression that he has been well-behaved (e.g. not spamming other articles) and don't recall noticing anything which suggested to me that he is editing in bad faith or anything like that. Still, I'd be a lot happier of someone was willing to take the time to look more carefully than I have into this. I also wish I had the sense that Garth is going to declare the article complete at some point. FWIW, I think the outcome should of this AfD should probably be reported as inconclusive, reserving the right to nominate it again without prejudice if problems should develop (which I hope won't happen since we have enough trouble from other quarters in the physics/cosmology categories).---CH 09:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I will gladly declare the article complete, as much as any Wikipedia article is ever complete, and leave it alone from now on if that is what is required.Garthbarber 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO you can help the article significantly if you can button-hole a colleague and get him/her to review it and then edit boldly where necessary. The main problem we have is your sole authorship of the article, which really should be written by neutral 3rd parties. Having said that, as long as the article is there and you believe it needs improving/correcting, please feel free to do so. Crum375 14:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a POV template to the article, with an explanation on the Talk page. Crum375 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Theories madder than this are encyclopedia. It seems to be well referenced and presents no claims of absolute correctness, just an alterneative. I am compelled to note here that I am not a cosmologist; although I have a very basic understanding of the standard model ideas I cannot vouch for the scientific accuracy of this model. A section on counterclaims, or reasons that this is not 'the best' model would be a nice addition.Inner Earth 13:44, 29 June 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.