Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral galaxy dynamics

Spiral galaxy dynamics

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

There was actually a reasonable amount of coverage for the original papers, although it is hard to find much of it on the internet after this time period. http://science-wired.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/where-did-you-get-those-lovely-spirals.html http://news.softpedia.com/news/Milky-Way-Needs-to-Be-Remapped-129321.shtml https://phys.org/news/2012-03-stellar-superhighway-milky.html. One may agree with inclusion of widely known but incorrect theories if it is also clearly reported that they are not established, if alternatives are properly considered (which is the function of this article) and if their content is accurately reported (which is not the case for the diagram of spirals from ellipses in the article spiral galaxy which is shown from a rotating reference frame: Stellar orbits are not centrally aligned. It actually shows one spiral twice). Another site showing that diagram is incorrect, and with an independent description of the model http://playtechs.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/spiral-galaxy-hack.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a journal of every scientific paper, only those of groundbreaking, controversial or otherwise notable significance. This is none of those. See how sparsely populated Category:Academic journal articles is (there should be more than that though). Also, COI is a no no, though a secondary issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of the article is as described in the referenced News bulletin of the Royal Astronomical Society. To be honest I don't think this should be classed either as original research, or as a description of a research paper. The description of a spiral potential is absolutely standard Newtonian dynamics. To make a comparison, if it were an invention it would not be patentable because the model is sufficiently simple and obvious that any competent dynamicist working in the field should have been able to come up with it. I have given references to two others who did just that, one of them prominent in the field. My contribution was only to compare stellar velocities in the Milky Way with those of the model. I do not see a conflict of interest, only a desire for correct science. It is surely desirable that Wikipedia articles are written by those who know something about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a partial merge to Spiral galaxy#Origin of the spiral structure on the order of one paragraph. I sympathize with the author in that this discussion may feel like a rejection of the theory covered in the paper; that it is not, nor are Wikipedia editors qualified to do so. Rather, as an encyclopedia, we are working under guidelines that require for scientific theories to be widely covered and accepted before they can become article topics in their own right; and it does not appear that this theory has cleared that hurdle yet. As for notability of the article per se (if that argument was intended), that bar is even higher and applies to outright seminal stuff like The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. - I don't think COI is much of an issue here, except when it comes to assessing topic notability (naturally :p). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found the policy guideline that scientific theories are widely covered and accepted, and indeed one wants an encyclopedia to be able to look up that which is recherche. Indeed there are many topics in Wikipedia on material which can only be found in academic journals. I do not see why this should be different. I have found that "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist," together with the statement "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals....". but four such references are given, together with a News report from the Royal Astronomical Society. A partial merge makes some sense, but I was previously asked to make a separate article.RQG (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]