Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRSI model

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 merge‎ to Alternatives to general relativity. There were mixed opinions about the Merge target (perhaps there are two?) but that discussion can move out of AFD and onto the talk page of the article in question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GRSI model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This model is not notable: it has very few citations outside of Deur's group and no secondary sources covering it. I'm not sure it's technically WP:FRINGE, but it doesn't seem worthy of its own article, or of anything more than a cursory mention (if that) elsewhere. I don't think any of the "full GR" models have been considered successful at removing the need for dark matter. Parejkoj (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Parejkoj (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Non-standard cosmology: where it deserves a paragraph or two, based on existing fringe academic literature. Owen× ☎ 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Alternatives to general relativity The GR-SI model is a computational extension of General Relativity. It uses the GR field theory exclusively, it does not modify the Standard Model, it does not challenge the role of GR or the Standard Model in Big Bang theory. When cosmology is discussed it is only to explore the impact of the alternative calculations. Thus it is not suitable for Non standard cosmology. (Replacing my anti-delete with an argument for a different merge target: The argument for deletion is not strong. The first reference in the article is a review so the claim above of no secondary sources is not upheld. Multiple peer reviewed papers and citations mean this is not fringe. The status of other models with respect to removing the need for dark matter is not relevant. The name of the article is puzzling even after reading it and some of the cited articles; this acronym is not used AFAICT and should not be a title. In any case I think work by an recent American Physical Society Fellow (https://www.jlab.org/news/releases/parsing-puzzle-nucleon-spin) should not be considered WP:FRINGE. This is simply another physics theory. Unfortunately the article Non-standard cosmology is an unnecessarily negative title )Johnjbarton (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see nothing negative about the title Non-standard cosmology. Anything other than ΛCDM is "non-standard". This isn't pseudoscience, it's just not the leading theory at the moment. But if you have a better target for this merge, or a better name for the target page, let's hear it and discuss. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I think that discussion would be better here: Talk:Non-standard_cosmology#Alternative_organizations Johnjbarton (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into an appropriate target like Alternatives to general relativity (1st choice), Non-standard cosmology (2nd choice), etc.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively into an appropriate target, as suggested above. The available secondary sourcing is just too thin. The citations to reference 3, for example, run the gamut from MDPI (unreliable) to self-citation (not independent) to arXiv preprints (typically unsuitable). The review cited by the article is by someone who also promotes their own replacement for dark matter, involving a "second flavor of hydrogen", that others seem rather indifferent to. Indeed, that review spends 21 paragraphs on the author's own "second flavor of hydrogen" idea, versus 6 on Deur's proposal. It is not an evaluation from a mainstream position. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're setting our selves up for a problem: I guess there may be many such "merge" candidates. Say for example Einstein-aether theory. Our readers need an overview and paragraph on each, rather than a mashup of articles we'd prefer not to have stand alone. I guess we can view the mashup as a resource for future work ;-). Johnjbarton (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the wikipedia page for this model for two reasons:

1) The GR-SI model is a frequent topic of discussion on physics and astrophysics forums as well as in blogs. A Google search for the author's name (Deur) along with the subjects 'Deur "dark matter"' or 'Deur "dark energy"' returns 71,600 or 51,800 hits respectively. I am aware that it is also widely debated in Germany; for instance, a search for 'Deur "Dunkle Materie"' yields 4,200 hits, or the reference by Prof. T. Moeller in this month's issue of Leserbrief Physik Journal (12 2003). This general interest is one reason I thought a dedicated wikipage would be useful.

2) The other reason is because the model addresses numerous dark matter and dark energy related phenomena whose corresponding wikipages cite alternative solutions, such as MOND or the work by Cooperstock and Tieu concerning rotation curves (which are also strongly criticized by dark universe proponents). Hence, a specific GR-SI page seems logical rather than providing a brief descriptions of GR-SI in each of those Wikipedia pages (dark matter, dark energy, galactic rotation curves, and Microwave Background Anisotropy...)

Merging the GR-SI page with a more general one like "Non-Standard Cosmology" would still serve the two purposes above, so I think it is a good solution if we do feel that having a dedicated wiki page for this model is not warranted. Peterjol (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peterjol, your article is very well written, and the academic sources you provided support verifiability. The only question here is whether the model has received enough secondary coverage to make it notable enough for a standalone article.

For all we know, new measurements next year will push out Lambda-CDM in favour of GRSI, Dr. Alexandre Deur will rise to worldwide glory, and your article will be dug up from the depths of wikihistory beneath the redirect (although my money is on a variant of MOND...). But until then, we're stuck with a shortage of secondary coverage, as you already acknowledged. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Alternatives to general relativity with a summary-style entry in Non-standard cosmology. Perhaps it belongs at the end of the Modern theories section? Praemonitus (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2023 (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.