Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum genesis

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 Speedy keep - no arguments for deletion including the nominator. As such, I see no point leaving this open any longer. ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum genesis

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

Concerns that this is a non-notable hypothesis about the beginning of the universe. I'm myself neutral, slightly suspecting fringe science. Listing to generate discussion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is currently a stub, from the Gbooks hits there seems to be enough sources available to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at present; review soon; delete without prejudice if not fleshed-out. This truly is a notable topic, and the article is less than a week old. The article shouldn't be allowed to stand indefinitely if nothing is done with it, but neither should an editor who is prepared to write a more full article fear speedy deletion based on a past deletion. —SlamDiego_←T 14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keepI try and go through the list of articles for deletion every day, and find an article that merits keeping. I have to say that today I feel really strongly about what I have to say. This is a notable topic, and needs to have an article on the subject. Right now there is little more than a sentence on the subject but there is no doubt that the article has the potential to grow and improve. There should not be any time limit on this, I looked at the history and the article has only been around for a few days. Give the article a chance to grow. It must be very discouraging to a new author to see even a single sentence article proposed for deletion. I have calculated that there is a real danger that wikipedia will implode, and all that will be left of it will be the manual of style. When something stops growing it starts to die often in nature, and when we stop adding information to wikipedia the same might happen. To the author if this potentially fantastic article I say thank you for your efforst, they are appreciated and keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamQuaternion (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - . Deletion was not requested, just discussion. The article talk p. is the place for discussion. (I have no person opinion on the actual notability of the theory) DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – needs sources, but a quick google scholar search shows that is certainly possible. Plastikspork (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well it's pretty clear what the feeling is about this article (at least for now). No sense in keeping this open. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:16, 12 August 2009 (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.