Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antimatter comet

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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antimatter comet

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

Lack of reliable sources. Three of the references are based on the ideas of one man, Norm Hansen, who apparently presented ideas at an American Physical Society meeting here and here. The other reference is somewhat outdated; 15 years ago, there was still some doubt about the origin of gamma-ray bursts. At this point, that is not the case, and antimatter comets are not the progenitors. There are no peer reviewed articles that I could find backing any of the claims made in this article. James McBride (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Meh. I created this article as a report on a fringe viewpoint, so I guess that violates Wikipedia's fringe theory policy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC) See below. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there published criticism of the hypothesis from the mainstream scientific community? If so, the article could be improved with discussion of, and reference to, that crticism. If there is not, then maybe it is just not notable. LadyofShalott 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the statements in the nomination are false. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Which statements? LadyofShalott 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if disproved or dubious, it's still an intriguing theory that deserves mentioning. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the creator states, more to do with being very much a fringe theory with little notability of its own. Some of the material could be mentioned in passing on other articles such as Antimatter. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) As far as I can tell, this looks like a notable theory; at least it should probably be redirected and given a passing mention as suggested above. —innotata 16:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - greatly improved since nomination; sources now establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifyable and notable (if somewhat bizarre). Steigman 1976: "Indeed, Sofia & Van Horn ( 1974) suggested that the recently observed y-ray bursts (Klebesadel et al. 1973, Cline et al. 1973) are caused by comet-sized antirocks falling into late-type stars."^{(doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.14.090176.002011) (doi: 10.1086/153278)} Also see Tunguska_event#Antimatter and "antimatter meteor"[1]. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant improvement since my nomination. I am still not sure how notable this is, but my primary concern in nominating the article was misinformation. After making clear in the gamma-ray burst section that antimatter comets are not the progenitors, all misinformation concerns I had have been addressed. James McBride (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although currently the reader is not really told anywhere that this concept is now relegated into the great cemetery of ideas that never made it very far, in the company of the Hollow Earth and luminiferous aether, and others. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with the caveat that it still needs work. The idea is arguably historically relevant (among other things, the Schuster papers discussed a while back at Talk:Antimatter mentioned something similar as a conjecture). Per WP:NOTPAPER, as long as a topic passes verifiability tests and made at least a little impact, there's no reason not to describe it (while taking care to not present it as having greater weight than it actually does). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - user:Uncle G did a great job fixing it up now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable even before G, but WP:HEY anyway. -Atmoz (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2010 (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.