Describe below which "refs include unreliable, unreviewed, pop-science hype and WP:FRINGE material", and bring evidence with each of your asserts (your own sentiment about what your are naively considering unreliable, unreviewed, pop-science hype and WP:FRINGE material is not at all an evidence, of course). Try to convince us. Have a nice day. --[[Special:Contributions/91.169.1.118|91.169.1.118]] ([[User talk:91.169.1.118|talk]]) 19:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Describe below which "refs include unreliable, unreviewed, pop-science hype and WP:FRINGE material", and bring evidence with each of your asserts (your own sentiment about what your are naively considering unreliable, unreviewed, pop-science hype and WP:FRINGE material is not at all an evidence, of course). Try to convince us. Have a nice day. --[[Special:Contributions/91.169.1.118|91.169.1.118]] ([[User talk:91.169.1.118|talk]]) 19:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
:Let's see. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-018-3365-3 D'Agostini and Petit (2018)] is a recent, unevaluated [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]] source, and the only citations to it have been by [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4921324693259829002&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22&hl=en&num=20 the authors themselves]. For our purposes, that's worthless. Next is [https://www.academia.edu/38606197/Bibliographie_du_mod%C3%A8le_cosmologique_Janus_Bibliography_of_the_Janus_cosmological_model a bibliography] hosted on [[Academia.edu]], which counts for nothing, and it degenerates into a ramble at the end which makes enough claims about enough people that relying on it would violate [[WP:BLP]] as well as [[WP:RS]]. The sentence {{tq|Among them, the [[Janus cosmological model]] is the most advanced model}} is completely unsupported by reliable sources and cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20061204113609/http://www2.iap.fr/users/riazuelo/cosmo/jpp/p2.html archived web page by Riazuelo] may be acceptable under [[WP:SPS]], but it calls Petit's work garbage, and you might not want to include that one after all. Riazuelo concludes that "JPP" makes {{tq|Plusieurs erreurs de base ... qui disqualifient irrémédiablement le modèle}}. [https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2018/12/aa32898-18.pdf Farnes (2018)] mentions Petit and d'Agostini only to dismiss their theory in a single sentence as "incompatible with observations". If this citation is supposed to support the claim that the Janus cosmological model has been {{tq|deeply ... discussed among cosmologists}}, well, it doesn't. Next we have [http://www.ihes.fr/~damour/publications/JanusJanvier2019-1.pdf Damour (2019)], who says that {{tq|le "modèle Janus" est physiquement (et mathématiquement) incohérent}}. None of these amount to support for the idea that the Janus model {{tq|is the most advanced model}}, to say the least. [https://www.darksideofgravity.com/Consistency.pdf Next] we have another [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]] source, not even formally published, by [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/52474130.pdf a collaborator of Petit]. Then we have a primary source, published yet too new to have been evaluated by the wider community, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bimetric_gravity&type=revision&diff=888967669&oldid=888955352 I removed already].
:Yeah, not looking good so far. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 20:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:02, 26 March 2019
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.
To start a peer review, choose an appropriate topic from the list below and click on the link to create the review page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.SpaceWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceTemplate:WikiProject SpaceSpace articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Not without a solid consensus that the "reused" content, which was removed for good reason, is actually compliant with Wikipedia's policies. And citation spamming with every paper, news story and blog post that mentions a tangentially relevant topic is not the foundation of a working editorial relationship. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Special for XOR'easter
Describe below which "refs include unreliable, unreviewed, pop-science hype and WP:FRINGE material", and bring evidence with each of your asserts (your own sentiment about what your are naively considering unreliable, unreviewed, pop-science hype and WP:FRINGE material is not at all an evidence, of course). Try to convince us. Have a nice day. --91.169.1.118 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. D'Agostini and Petit (2018) is a recent, unevaluated primary source, and the only citations to it have been by the authors themselves. For our purposes, that's worthless. Next is a bibliography hosted on Academia.edu, which counts for nothing, and it degenerates into a ramble at the end which makes enough claims about enough people that relying on it would violate WP:BLP as well as WP:RS. The sentence Among them, the Janus cosmological model is the most advanced model is completely unsupported by reliable sources and cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice. The archived web page by Riazuelo may be acceptable under WP:SPS, but it calls Petit's work garbage, and you might not want to include that one after all. Riazuelo concludes that "JPP" makes Plusieurs erreurs de base ... qui disqualifient irrémédiablement le modèle. Farnes (2018) mentions Petit and d'Agostini only to dismiss their theory in a single sentence as "incompatible with observations". If this citation is supposed to support the claim that the Janus cosmological model has been deeply ... discussed among cosmologists, well, it doesn't. Next we have Damour (2019), who says that le "modèle Janus" est physiquement (et mathématiquement) incohérent. None of these amount to support for the idea that the Janus model is the most advanced model, to say the least. Next we have another primary source, not even formally published, by a collaborator of Petit. Then we have a primary source, published yet too new to have been evaluated by the wider community, which I removed already.
