Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (2nd nomination)

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 Keep Clearly no consensus to delete. There is a strong sentiment towards merging. I think that can be worked out on the article talk page and performed without the aid of an admin. Chillum 20:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies

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

Fails WP:BK. The claim at the last AfD that there are seven reviews of the book found in the scientific literature was not found to be correct. In fact, the book was simply mentioned and not substantively reviewed. The book is now out of print and not likely to go back into print any time soon as the ideas behind it are now simply discredited. jps (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - merge to Halton Arp Rhoark (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Although the content of the book is completely wrong, I think Wikipedia should maintain an article about it for the curious. Arp is still a cause celebre among many on the fringe of science, so I don't think we're well served by deletion. I think I'd be ok with merging some of the content with Arp's page, but not with deleting it entirely. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Halton Arp, where it seems to be little mentioned. Arp certainly does have a following among what I like to call the Baader-film-hat crowd, but I don’t know that this book in particular has more than inherited notability. Still, it appears to be a major exposition of his thinking, including responses to the criticism aroused by his earlier publications, and it did receive some notice at the time.—Odysseus 1479 03:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick look in Google Scholar shows reviews in the major reviewing publications in the field: Nature, Science, New Scientist, Journal of the British Astronomical Association, and Physics Today. It was also reviewed in the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and Sky & Telescope, and there are probably others out there. Some reviews are long, some are short, none are just mentions.

Much of science develops through multiple theories and opinions with one view eventually being supported. I object to the idea that those on the "losing" sides aren't real scientists or that their theories are "fringe views". Our view of these scientists should not be colored by the kinds of people who later choose to use them to support fringe theories.

Arp's work was notable and much discussed at the time. It was controversial. Astronomy is a field with a small number of researchers and a large number of controversies. This book is often cited in works on how science operates and how controversy is handled.

The content of the book is not "completely wrong". His astronomy was amazing. His theory was proven wrong. Here is the last sentence of the long review of the book by Martin Rees in Physics Today: "This book describes the lifetime quest of a genuine scientific explorer whose discoveries have earned the admiration even of those who interpret the universe differently." StarryGrandma (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The book seems important to Halton Arp, but not necessarily to Astronomical debate in general. The material could serve better at his article, I think. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2015 (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.