- 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 delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hoyle Shield
- Hoyle Shield ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail on all known notability grounds. This is really an engineering concept and as far as I know we don't have any notability guidelines for proposed systems like this, so I think the only thing we can go by is WP:GNG. I don't really see it passing any of those criteria as it seems that only associated people and flash-in-the-pan news-sources have covered this particular idea of William E. Smith (himself not notable, I believe). jps ( talk) 13:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Only two GS hits, both by Smith, neither of which has more than 2 citations (all of which are self-citations, in this rather dubious "journal"). So there are no independent reliable sources. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Not seeing a lot of RS, and seems all a bit Crystal bally to me.14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fred Hoyle and his panspermia theories are highly notable. This isn't so much INHERITED as tagging weakly onto its coat tails. If this very large project is real, then it has to demonstrate notability for itself. I'm unconvinced that it can achieve either. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with reasons stated by others. Dismally small number of hits in google for this. It's an interesting idea, but it's WP:TOOSOON for this article without some markedly better sources. -- Krelnik ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with @ Andy Dingley: Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hoyle Shield
- Hoyle Shield ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail on all known notability grounds. This is really an engineering concept and as far as I know we don't have any notability guidelines for proposed systems like this, so I think the only thing we can go by is WP:GNG. I don't really see it passing any of those criteria as it seems that only associated people and flash-in-the-pan news-sources have covered this particular idea of William E. Smith (himself not notable, I believe). jps ( talk) 13:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Only two GS hits, both by Smith, neither of which has more than 2 citations (all of which are self-citations, in this rather dubious "journal"). So there are no independent reliable sources. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Not seeing a lot of RS, and seems all a bit Crystal bally to me.14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fred Hoyle and his panspermia theories are highly notable. This isn't so much INHERITED as tagging weakly onto its coat tails. If this very large project is real, then it has to demonstrate notability for itself. I'm unconvinced that it can achieve either. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with reasons stated by others. Dismally small number of hits in google for this. It's an interesting idea, but it's WP:TOOSOON for this article without some markedly better sources. -- Krelnik ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with @ Andy Dingley: Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.