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. Needs improvement, but AfD isn't cleanup.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies[edit]

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This book does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. What's more, the page basically functions as a way to unduly promote the opinions of a fringe astronomer, Halton Arp. Whatever content is useful can be kept at his biographical article. ScienceApologist 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - entirely redundant POV fork. This article should be about the book, but isn't. Instead of describing the structure of the book, how it came to be written and the other topics addressed in serious writing about books, it discusses only the man and his idea. What's more, it does so in a POV manner. Anville 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Halton Arp was a fringe astronomer? For heaven's sake, why did they ever let him work at the Palomar observatory or the Max Planck institute? Right. Alternate theories to new ideas are an essential element to science. While his views are not widely accepted, I still think he had a notable role in determining the nature of QSO. Challenges to accepted views lead to more thorough testing. As for POV-ness, I have to disagree. It seems quite neutral in perspective. — RJH (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really addressing the point of notability. --ScienceApologist 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I recall reading this book because I read about it. Arp made a splash with it at this time. Since then, the weight of the evidence has become totally against these views, but that is a different matter. At the time, the issue of what quasars are was still a fairly active controversy, although the majority view was already that these are the cores of active distant galaxies. IMO, this book probably is notable under criteria 1 of WP:BK, but the article fails to establish that notability. --EMS | Talk 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See [1]. This is the kind of review that led to my buying this book. It may also be possible to find articles written about this book in places like the New York Times and the magazine Sky and Telescope. --EMS | Talk 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A creationist review? I'm not sure why you would use a creationist site to confer notability on this subject. Nor am I sure that it makes sense to rewrite this article from a perspective on notability given to it by creationism. --ScienceApologist 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why you conisder the review to be creationist, although I agree that this site is insufficient to confer notability on the topic. I did see a mainsteam review along similar lines which got me to buy it. What I can tell you is that the book hit a nerve when it came out, and did get noticed at the time. OTOH, it's long-term impact has been negligible other than to help establish Arp as a crank.
        Let's just say that I am dealing with competing concerns here: The article is not well written and I would rather not help to promote Arp's views, but OTOH what I know about the book says that it probably qualifies as being notable. --EMS | Talk 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - some material could be merged into his bio, but by and large there's nothing suggesting any kind of independent importance of this book. Mangoe 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All POV or other questionable content aside, there is no assertion of notability. Someguy1221 06:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. ...with Halton Arp. There is little description concerning the book per se, but some of the information is suitable for merging with the author's page. --Iantresman 15:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A search on NASA ADS reveals that this book was reviewed at least 8 times in the scientific literature, including reviews in Nature and Sky & Telescope which are widely read outside the professional community. Few books by scientists get this much attention. This amply satisfies the notability criteria given at WP:BK. For good reason: Arp was a major figure in astronomy in the 60s through the 80s; to dismiss him as "fringe" is a travesty of whig history. Obviously the article could be improved and focussed more on the book; but since the book is a justification of Arp's views the current focus is not grotesque. PaddyLeahy 18:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That is the data that I though was out there somewhere. --EMS | Talk 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So it is notable. The Nature article is here. Good read, too. Someguy1221 09:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep My reason for staying neutral has become a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The notability is now established, but the article is still in need of some editing to describe the book iteself more and to note the attention that it got when first published.
• Keep for goodness sake! This is a good summary of a notable book by a respected astronomer. As for "fringe"... why not read the list of awards he's received at Halton Arp? andy 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Arp is an excellent astronomer but a mediocre astrophysicist. In the past (the 1960s through the 1980s), he was prominent as a suppoter of the steady state universe. However, since that time the the wieght of the astronomical evidence against his views has become, well, astronomical. So today, those same views are just plain fringe. Even so, that does not bear on the notability of the book or of Arp himself, nor should it diminish his excellent contributions to astronomy or the fact that the questions he raised about Big Bang theory looked good at the time. --EMS | Talk 17:22, 14 May 2007 (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.