Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Lurch (cosmology)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Lurch (cosmology)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article itself is lifted from an off-hand comment made in an interview (compare the article text with the source: "matter itself can, kind of, work itself up to a frenzy; the pressure, forces in the universe might become infinite and again time might or might not be a casualty of that ... according to astronomical calculations, there is a finite probability of it actually happening and relatively soon"). I initially just tagged it to request better sources but having searched myself I didn't find any independent coverage. The Google search '"Big Lurch" cosmology' turns up 63 results, almost none of which are relevant. Doesn't seem notable unless there's a different technical name for the concept unmentioned in the article. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree; the only relevant result in Google Scholar is the Scientific American article. Without the disambiguator, nearly all results are for the rapper Big Lurch. Big Brake has similarly poor sourcing, but it seems to be marginally notable based on GScholar results. One source definitely independent of the original authors and the authors of the SA article is: ^[1] –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We shouldn't create articles by sweeping up the debris at the bottom of the pop-science cliff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chimento, Luis P.; Richarte, Martín G. (16 February 2016). "Big brake singularity is accommodated as an exotic quintessence field". Physical Review D. 93 (4). arXiv:1512.02664. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.043524..

Delete. Agree with the above reasons. Aldebarium (talk) 19:15, 14 September 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.

[1] Chimento, Luis P.; Richarte, Martín G. (16 February 2016). "Big brake singularity is accommodated as an exotic quintessence field". Physical Review D. 93 (4). arXiv:1512.02664. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.043524..

[1]