Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dichotomous 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 was delete. Tone 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dichotomous cosmology[edit]

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

This is a WP:REDFLAG work that has not received external critique. Essentially WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE being violated here. jps (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can ascertain, this theory has as yet had no published response from within the relevant scientific field - and accordingly cannot meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. If this theory ever becomes mainstream, or at least receives significant published commentary, it may merit an article - but not now. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Delete. I am unable to find any secondary sources on this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources or discussion. Delete, per nom. Begoon ^talk 07:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't turn up any secondary sources. Looks like OR that has received no serious consideration. Delete per nomination. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that it is wrong! User:Yheyma

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of this discussion. We are under no obligation whatsoever to 'prove' anything. Instead, the only issue here is whether the subject matter of the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion - specifically does it meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, as demonstrated through in-depth coverage in third-party published reliable sources. The article provides no such evidence, and without such evidence, the article will be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take some time to familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines. There is nothing establishing this subject as notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE/PS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ZERO mention in reliable independent secondary sources' Pure fringe OR and blither.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia notability guidelines ,Verifiability as it lacks third-party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2014 (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.