Talk:Primordial isocurvature baryon model

This article

Do we really need an article about a model that may have been viable twenty years ago but has no relevance whatsoever these days? Basically, BOOMERanG's detection of the first acoustic peak of the CMB temperature anisotropies killed all models with dominantly isocurvature perturbations. And WMAP's detection of the second peak killed models without dark matter (assuming GR is valid). In my opinion, this topic is not notable enough to deserve its own article. SwordSmurf (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that it was no longer viable. Still, the topic is certainly notable and deserving of a Wikipedia article, just like Geocentric model, which is no longer viable. People will still want to know what the subject is (if, for instance like me, they were doing research on Photon diffusion damping). If the model is bad, the article should state that pretty early on. Do you have a source for that? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at Bucher, Moodley & Turok (2000) – they explicitly mention it on page 3, but you can also find earlier work in this direction in their reference section. In any case, you cannot possibly be serious about comparing this model to the Geocentric model, which has, after all, dominated (at least) the western world's views on the Universe for millenia, and is certainly of great historical and cultural interest to a wide audience of readers.

Don't get me wrong, the PBI model clearly was a clever idea when Peebles came up with it, but in today's cosmology it is all but irrelevant. Does it merit a passing mention in some other article? Perhaps. But its own article? I don't think so. SwordSmurf (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is "how much can be reasonably written (and sourced) about this topic?" not "how interesting is it?". If the model's influence and depth were negligible, it might not warrant its own article; but the PBI model's fallaciousness and irrelevance to modern cosmology are irrelevant. I expect, from what little I know of the subject, enough could be written, so I move to keep the article for now. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I beg to differ. I do not believe that an encyclopaedia is just about filling pages. Of course a lot could be written about this topic (or about any other topic, for that matter), but would it be notable enough? The PBI model was neither a scientific breakthrough in 1987, nor is it particularly unique. There are plenty of similar examples; I invite you to look at some of the old papers, e.g., Gouda & Sugiyama (1992). It was just one among many possible scenarios considered at the time. SwordSmurf (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's more than a matter of how much can be written... it's also a matter of how much can be reliably sourced. Note, the word "notability" has a special meaning in the context of Wikipedia articles. Read WP:N: it lists the criterion for notability:

“ If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. ”

It is quite obvious to me that the above criterion is met by the PIB models. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit further down, the WP:N article states:

“ "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. ”

In other words, it's a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for notability. What leads you to believe this topic is notable enough? Being published in Nature? Having been cited more than 100 times? Do all ideas that fulfil one of these criteria warrant their own articles in an encyclopaedia? Hardly. In my opinion, notability of a scientific subject requires more than that. Uniqueness, scientific impact, being of interest to non-specialists, the influence and depth you mention – I'm sorry to say, but this topic fails to impress on any of these accounts. In the cosmology community, the PBI model is regarded as hardly more than a historical curiosity, I don't see why it should be given any more weight in wikipedia. SwordSmurf (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe if we are presuming that PIB models are notable, then the burden of proof in on you to show the topic is not appropriate for inclusion, i.e. violates a Wikipedia policy. All you have done is show that it's wrong (which the article now mentions). For example, you may find some policy at WP:NOT which prevents this topic from having its own article. To answer your rhetorical questions, I do think being cited in numerous scientific journals is a strong suggestion that a topic is notable, because the primary criterion for notability is verifiability. Let me also state that this topic does not warrant its own article in Britannica. But Wikipedia is not Britannica, and Wikipedia is not paper. Many, many articles on Wikipedia are rarely of interest to non-specialists, e.x. Atomic line filter (3200 Google hits), Conatus (a totally defunct term from early philosophy and physics). Note: I'm not a specialist, and I'm interested in PIB models. The criteria for inclusion is higher in other encyclopaedias, which would never include articles on such topics. I agree with you, PIB model is just a historical curiosity; but historical curiosities which can be well-referenced are documented on Wikipedia. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the wikipedia should not strive for the same level of quality as a printed encyclopaedia, then I'm afraid there is no point in arguing with you. As a professional researcher in cosmology, this topic certainly does not pass my notability criteria and I am baffled as to why it would anyone else's. I could imagine a section in an article on, e.g., Historical models of structure formation dedicated to this model, but an article of its own seems rather absurd to me. SwordSmurf (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely believe that "Wikipedia should strive for the same level of quality as a printed encyclopaedia"! Wikipedia simply tends to treat subjects in more detail than print encyclopaedias... that's why the tendency here is to create separate articles on smaller subjects. The idea behind the verifiability criterion is to make sure that all articles can be of a high quality, however unimportant their topics may be.

I would have zero objection if someone were to put the information from this article (what little there is) into some summary article such as you propose. Right now, the amount of material on PIB models would fit comfortably in just such an article, and the larger article could provide some (much needed) context in which to discuss PIB models. However, I would not be surprised if in a few years time that summary article had to be split into sub-articles because it became too long.

Until someone creates such a summary article (which will undoubtedly happen whether or not this article stays separate), the information that exists should go somewhere. I'm currently working on Photon diffusion damping and don't have the time to start a proper article. But if you would create an article perhaps entitled "Models of structure formation", I would definitely lend a hand! Possibly it would make sense to create one article for a summary of all models of cosmology, defunct or not (for starters). You certainly know the field better than I; I'll go with your recommendation. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can leave the information here for now, I will see if we can find a proper home for it, time permitting. SwordSmurf (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)