Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral galaxy dynamics

Spiral galaxy dynamics

Spiral galaxy dynamics (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)

The article contains Original Resaerch as it describes a theory of evolution of spiral arms proposed in a research paper. Moreover, it briefs some outcomes of the theorized model in article sub-sections. The theory presented on origin of spiral structure in the article has not attracted wide spread attention from others in the field, and so it fails notability criteria (can be verified from google, for example). All sources, except one, are self citations; problem with other citation is described on the talk page. Some sentences are copy-pasted from the publication (eg. in section "Bisymmetric spirals"). Creator and main contributor of the article seems to have conflict of interest (images in the article, taken from the publication, are declared as "own work" by the article creator, so article creator seems to be author of the publication). UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 18:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Science is not based on research papers. It is based on data and on mathematical analysis from the known laws of physics, and is thus entirely objective. The article describes the unique model of spiral structure in keeping with both observation and the mathematics of Newtonian gravity. As such it deserves to remain as a matter of science. RQG (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Science is not absolute. Any theory can be disproven by observations. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

A model may be unique, may be correct, may be a groundbreaking discovery, but still can not be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia because of Wikipedia policies. Anyone can propose and even publish theories, but if they have not received considerable attention/coverage, they can not be included. On the other hand, an incorrect and debunked theory can be included if it is widely known and discussed in media (technical or general).--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 20:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: The only reason to keep this would be as an example of all the things that a Wikipedia article should not be. Apparent WP:COI, lack of WP:GNG, no secondary or tertiary sources (except a gratuitous link to Hipparcos data), looks more like an WP:ESSAY than an article about a tangible and well-defined subject. Admittedly the author was advised several years ago to shovel all the crap out of a more conventional article into something like this, but if it actually described spiral galaxy dynamics in a complete and non-partisan way then likely nobody would have objected in the first place. Did I mention we should get rid of it? Possibly, as such a general term, there would be no harm in redirecting, but it is hardly a likely search term. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It was just redirected to spiral galaxy dynamics by someone else. That could be undone. One may observe that it has been accepted as scientific by five reviewers in respected journals. RQG (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It is, in fact, possible to google for independent work supporting the result that stars move along spiral arms, contrary to accepted belief. I have added a paragraph with a reference to a press release from the Royal Astronomical Society, which also references the importance of the work to astronomy RQG (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)