1115:- I think the nomination is slightly misstated firstly WP:OR doesn't come into it, as the Material is not being published here in the first instance - It has all been reliably published in journals and books and the content is properly sourced to them. There is a WP:COI but that in its self is not grounds for deletion. The biggest questions should be can this theory be independently verified, and can we represent it neutrally as a notable fringe theory? To answer, we need reliable sources by third parties discussing the material at hand, whilst these do not exist in English (or romanised Russian) it is clear that all this material was all initially printed in cyrillic Russian and the possibility exists that any reliable third party sources may also exist in this form. I would ask the article writer to provide any sources (in any language) that show his material has been subject of Peer Review or general independent coverage within or without the scientific community. Failing that my vote would be a delete.
1411:. I don't think there's anything that's possible to get into shape. The only people on Earth who are interested in this purported "constant" are the fringe authors who think that they've calculated it and thereby solved the Grand Unification problem. Fisenko's objection on this point was quite correct; when I tried to remove the unreliable sources, the little I had left was no longer an article about the "strong gravitational constant" at all. At the moment, I think no such article is possible.
1493:. Its existence is real. It is a serious and vital grand unified fundamental physical constant. If it is not existing- 'existence of massive atom' or ' 'existence of massive elementary particle' is doubtful and meaningless. Please note that till today no fundamental theory makes a comment on the 'origin of mass' of atoms and elementary particles. Here the very important question to be answered is – which is more fundamental either
1281:. Introduction of a strong gravitational constant in the quantum area in itself does not result in something essential. However, acknowledgement of this fact is a base for further development of the concept of strong gravitational interaction as a gravitational interaction on quantum level. In my view this justifies keeping the article Strong gravitational constant. I have provided more comments here:
1587:. It is known that there is a difference in between 'absolute findings' and 'absolute measurements'. Absolute findings can be understood where as 'absolute measurements' can not be made by nuclear experiments which are being conducted under the sky of universal gravity with 'unknown' origin of elementary particles mass. I humbly request the science community to kindly look into this issue.
779:: have you refeences where is proved that idea of Strong gravitational constant is fringe? There were other questions for him : Can you give evidence that Fedosin, Oldershaw, Stone, Perng, and Dufour are the fringe authors? Have you references where it is proved ? Up to now we have not any references about. So it is only personal position of
469:
Knowledge to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Could an article be written about this material? An article has been written about this material, and you can find that article at
1432:"secondary source", is Russian-language reviews of Fedosin's book. Therefore you are asking the impossible. Also, I don't see how you separate "existence" and "content". If every single sentence in an article ought to be deleted, then the whole article ought to be deleted. This is not a debate about
1143:
was discussed at Perm state university and at Perm state technical university. There are two official reviews of Prof. Dr. A.I. Saralov to the book, and report of Rector of Perm state technical university V.Yu. Petrov to the book, which help for participation of the book in Perm regional competition
725:
was done only in order to explain how is it possible to think about strong gravity in simple and natural way. I may be give more information about my own vision and applications of strong gravitational constant. But it was only because I well know the question in my own direction of investigation. I
409:
About uncontroversial truth. There is another phrase: "It is assumed, that in contrast to the usual force of gravity, at the level of elementary particles acts strong gravity". Then there are some attempts to define or assess the value of Strong gravitational constant. It is the truth only that till
1663:
recounts some related modern work. One key question is whether there exist any respectably published secondary sources that review or analyze or evaluate the research papers of
Fedosin, Fisenko, Seshavatharam, or Robert A Stone. A second key question is whether there exists so much notable material
1469:
is moot because it must necessarily rely upon that representation and the article on the constant should be deleted. If, however, there has been a reliably related formulaic representation, then the question becomes one of whether there is as part of that representation a constant unique to strong
1391:
article. The key issue here is not the existence of the article, but the content. If there has been inappropriate interference with editing of the article content in line with
Knowledge policy, that is a problem that needs to be taken up elsewhere. It does sound like there is the potential for a
468:
relevant to this article, which is an incomprehensible jungle of equations sourced to physics research by the article's creator, is ""Knowledge articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources... A primary source may only be used on
680:'s POV fork? In the article arranged only data which are in scientific papers about strong gravitational constatnt. It is not my imagination it is fact. Also I do not agree when you say that: “The "constant" is, on the other hand, the main feature---perhaps the only feature---of all of the
451:
can of course support a recommendation for deletion if the whole article is solely OR, and it is clearly not possible to solve the issues by the normal
Knowledge process. Is the claim that this is the case here? Based on the Google scholar hits, the topic appears to be notable enough.
1461:. Therefore, it follows that a formulaic representation of strong gravity as a force exists. At present, there is no formulaic representation of the strong gravity force in the article on the topic. If this is due to there being no supporting material which posits in a
1075:
There are notable fringe theories. And the line between fringe and non-fringe can be blurry (and this is an example where exactly where it falls might even be arguable). But at the end of the day, there's no notability to the claims, merely the ideas of a single author.
638:
theories (thus NN and RS) which
Fedosin is trying to synthesize (OR) into something that sounds like "hey, here's the glorious theory of strong gravity which is really quite well-worked-out, consistent, and important, and which I will later tie in with my pet
1617:-- User:seshavatharam.uvs , User:Sfisenko , User:Fedosin , User:Robert a stone jr -- they are authors of papers which are referenced in the article. Their opinion is important for that their ideas was not distorted by some users which discussing the article.
1387:(!vote revised 23:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC) )—I have no intrinsic problem with the existence of an article on this topic, as long as the length and content of the article are sufficient to justify existence as a complete article rather than a section in the
629:'s POV fork. The purported "constant" is something that barely appears, if at all, in mainstream theory papers which are focused on confinement. (The "constant" is, on the other hand, the main feature---perhaps the only feature---of all of the
386:
Yes, the word "alleged" is in the first sentence, that's good. But "alleged" is only one word. Every other word in the article presents the idea of strong gravity as uncontroversial truth. The only controversies discussed are controversies
697:
Strong
Interactions, Gravitation and Cosmology. Abdus Salam Publ. in: NATO Advanced Study Institute, Erice, June16-July 6, 1972 ; in: High Energy Astrophysics and its Relation to Elementary Particle Physics, 441-452 MIT Press, Cambridge
89:
1470:
gravity, then whether there is sufficient information reliably related which supports the composition of verifiable content, then whether there is sufficient verifiable content to support a stand alone article or not. --User:Ceyockey (
948:
If "strong gravitational constant" is simply deleted, then "strong gravity" will be missing the edit history of everything up to the point you copied it from. A history merge, or a redirect from this page name needs to be implemented.
720:
By your own words this authors just not fringe and so references to their papers are suitable. Your words about “mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses” mostly addressed to my data in the article and are wrong. Reference to
182:
1685:
and cleanup per Betsy and joshuaZ. Without addressing the question of notability (or the difference b/t fringe and other science), there is not currently enough published work on the topic to merit a separate article.
715:
S. I. Fisenko, M. M. Beilinson and B. G. Umanov. Some notes on the concept of “strong” gravitation and possibilities of its experimental investigation. Physics
Letters A, Volume 148, Issues 8-9, 3 September 1990, Pages
391:
the theory, e.g. what is the numerical value of the constant. This is a minor point, because in theory, bias can be removed by rewriting instead of deleting. The real problem is that this is non-notable fringe physics.
249:
I realize that an AfD is not the way to request a simple re-direct, and I am requesting more than a re-direct. I think this article should in fact be deleted; it is full of material that does not belong in
Knowledge.
633:
references, where they "compute" it via various mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses.) To support this constant, Fedosin is citing his own pet theory (thus the COI and OR), which is one of a dozen or so
1181:
contains articles: Equations of gravitational field in theory of relativity; Moment of momentum and radius of proton; Gravitation and black holes in special relativity. The book has review of Dr. A. S. Kim.
526:
only. May be you see in the article jungle of equations. Of course mathematical equations are second and special symbolic language and you do not need to know it. But this language is very punctual and
902:
so a simple delete will not suffice, if this is deleted, then the article history for strong gravity needs to be severed from this article and attached to that one from the version where it was copied.
502:
but without special knowledge, be able to verify what is now means about strong gravity and strong gravitational constant? Of course not. The idea of redirection was already discussed and is not good,
1352:, there were some e-mails with invitations to discuss the article. Fisenko was one who received such e-mail and he was ready to prepare his comment to the end of the week. From this I conclude that
84:
1428:. The way that someone would "get the article into shape" is by reading reliable, published secondary sources on the topic of this article. There is none. The closest anyone has come to finding
1668:. If this material should be covered in Knowledge, I hope that experienced Wikipedians and physicists will help the authors get it into shape as a respectably worded encyclopedia article.
1596:-- User:seshavatharam.uvs is presumably UVS Seshavatharam, someone who is doing research in this field, and whose paper is cited in the article. Like Sfisenko above, they were presumably
176:
372:
From here, Strong gravitational constant is supposed constant, which appears in papers of different authors. Why do you think that the text is presented as uncontroversial truth?
1392:
conflict of interest issue here, but I won't weigh in deeper than just making that observation. Keep the article and get it into shape rather than deleting it. --User:Ceyockey (
1155:. (in Russian) has two official reviews: from Docent Dr. V.M. Deev of Perm state pedagogical university and from Docent Dr. I.L. Volhin of Perm state university. The theory of
324:
876:
871:
617:
is that it was a topic of interest in the misty early days of QCD and/or the later, decaying days of old-style grand unification. I think we have that under control at
143:
116:
111:
726:
am sure other authors can add their thoughts and ideas about their applications of strong gravitational constant, or may be it could be done other users better then me.
880:
353:
120:
1585:
1538:
498:
is a stub because it contained only part of history of development of idea of gravitation at particle level. Can any educated person, with access to the sources in
1558:
1511:
969:
863:
103:
1170:. in Russian. This book has three official reviews: of Prof. Dr. V.N. Zheleznuak, of Prof. Dr. O.A. Barg, and Docent Dr. A.L. Zhulanov. The book: Fedosin S.G.
1208:
shows that the work of S G Fedosin has cites of 5, 5, 1, 1, of which 8 are self-citations, showing that it has had little impact on the scientific community.
1700:
1677:
1647:
1626:
1609:
1479:
1445:
1420:
1401:
1365:
1338:
1294:
1261:
1246:
1232:
1217:
1191:
1124:
1106:
1085:
1065:
1004:
984:
958:
943:
912:
761:
743:
660:
599:
581:
536:
482:
456:
419:
401:
381:
284:
259:
68:
1310:
is a single-purpose account which shares a name with one of the authors cited in the article. That's funny, the last time I participated in a
1152:
643:
theory that was deleted before." I have followed all of the references carefully (see the talk page), and there's nothing here that passes
1315:
197:
164:
1160:
950:
904:
684:
references, where they "compute" it via various mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses”. As you see the constant is in references:
831:
826:
229:, whose own theories are expounded at length in the current state of the article. Some relevant discussions of this topic elsewhere:
1178:
1167:
1140:
835:
1600:
by
Fedosin by email. Everyone is welcome to fairly consider seshavatharam.uvs's opinion, but we should be aware of this context. --
410:
now we have no generally accepted the numerical value of the constant. I think the controversy come from a lack of our knowledge.
818:
158:
17:
1540:? It is proposed that both can be considered as the 'head' and 'tail' of matter coin. It can also be suggested that classical
691:
Sivaram, C. and Sinha, K.P. Strong gravity, black holes, and hadrons. Physical Review D, 1977, Vol. 16, Issue 6, P. 1975-1978.
1643:
1636:. The article loses a great deal of credibility with a lengthy polemic section entitled "Its existence is true and real".
1660:
1466:
1033:
1017:
859:
799:
154:
99:
74:
867:
107:
710:
The
Conception of Thermonuclear Reactor on the Principle of Gravitational Confinement of Dense High-temperature Plasma.
995:
it's not our job to prove that this theory is fringe. It is the editor's job to prove that it isn't. He's failed.
204:
694:
Salam A. and
Sivaram C. Strong Gravity Approach to QCD and Confinement. Mod. Phys. Lett., 1993, v. A8(4), 321–326.
1715:
1257:
1120:
590:
I suppose these articles my be written, but as you see here too many critical users who want delete any articles.
569:
275:, presented as uncontroversial truth by someone with the worst conflict of interest. This is a clear-cut case. --
36:
1637:
1714:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1673:
478:
255:
233:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1588:
954:
908:
757:
553:
170:
709:
511:
1290:
1349:
515:
238:
1605:
1441:
1253:
1242:
1213:
1116:
1102:
787:
397:
280:
549:
1669:
1353:
1307:
1286:
822:
545:
474:
251:
190:
1473:
1395:
1000:
753:
565:
303:
1252:
Scholar shows 16, 5, 1, 1 cites for СГ Федосин but 10 of those 16 are other works by СГ Федосин
561:
1622:
1597:
1361:
1322:
1228:
1187:
1175:
1164:
1149:
1137:
1081:
1061:
1053:
1045:
980:
795:
739:
731:
640:
595:
577:
532:
453:
415:
377:
356:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1462:
1416:
1334:
939:
681:
656:
644:
635:
630:
272:
1282:
1029:
772:
503:
329:
1601:
1563:
1516:
1437:
1238:
1209:
1098:
448:
393:
293:
276:
1665:
1656:
1454:
1433:
1388:
1383:
1326:
1205:
1037:
1021:
1013:
925:
814:
669:
648:
618:
614:
523:
519:
499:
495:
470:
360:
269:
222:
59:
53:
1543:
1496:
1156:
722:
1094:
996:
440:
218:
49:
1692:
1618:
1357:
1311:
1224:
1183:
1077:
1057:
1049:
1041:
976:
791:
735:
727:
677:
626:
591:
573:
528:
465:
444:
436:
411:
373:
226:
214:
897:
852:
137:
702:
48:. The people who want to keep this as a separate article seem to be those with a
1412:
1330:
1283:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Strong_gravitational_constant#Modern_strong_gravity
1025:
935:
780:
776:
652:
507:
1436:: Someone else can still write an article with this title from scratch. :-) --
1028:
was proved that this theory is (possibly) non-mainstream and not fringe (see
1237:
GS cites Russian sources. Do the search yourself and tell us what you get.
56:, and written by people who do not have a personal interest in the matter.
556:, etc---but there are no articles about those constants. The article on
1689:
1144:
of scientific works (papers) in 1999 and 2003. The book: Fedosin S.G.
557:
1321:
to log in there too. Fedosin, please read Knowledge's policies on
522:. Redirection in last case take place because of absence of article
243:
90:
Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant (2nd nomination)
1659:, which gives an account of early work on the idea. At the moment,
52:. Consensus is that any content related to this topic should ba at
1458:
1145:
712:
Applied Physics Research, November 2010, Vol. 2, No. 2, P. 71 -79.
672:, it is more about strong gravitational constant. What does mean:
1465:
manner that formulaic representation, then all discussion of the
1171:
1133:
1708:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1664:
about this work that it needs its own article separate from
1172:
Sovremennye problemy fiziki: v poiskakh novykh printsipov.
221:. Attempts to redirect the article title to a new article
1134:
Fizika i filosofiia podobiia: ot preonov do metagalaktik,
931:; I copied it there from content suggested by this edit:
1146:
Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost’ materii.
924:. I don't know if it helps, but the present content of
932:
929:
893:
889:
885:
848:
844:
840:
133:
129:
125:
1148:– Perm, 2009, 844 pages, Tabl. 21, Pic. 41, Ref. 289.
189:
1566:
1546:
1519:
1499:
705:
Phys. Rev. D, 1974, Volume 10, Issue 6, P.1722–1725.
332:
306:
85:
Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant
1579:
1552:
1532:
1505:
1223:I hope search in Russian domain give more results.
347:
318:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1718:). No further edits should be made to this page.
473:, to which this article title should re-direct.
1159:was partly developed in the book: Fedosin S.G.
548:theory had constants associated with it---the
560:doesn't link to a separate article about the
203:
8:
1560:is a consequence of the existence of atomic
970:list of Science-related deletion discussions
968:Note: This debate has been included in the
443:are not by themselves grounds for deletion.
1163:– Moskva: Editorial URSS, 2003, 464 pages.
703:Electron, muon, proton, and strong gravity.
967:
647:scrutiny (except the bit that I forked to
1571:
1565:
1545:
1524:
1518:
1498:
1174:Moskva: Editorial URSS, 2002, 192 pages.
339:
331:
305:
296:, the text in the article sound so: "The
1161:Osnovy sinkretiki: filosofiia nositeleĭ.
668:. I do not agree. The article not about
311:
309:
244:My request to closing admin of first AfD
1157:Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter
723:Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter
82:
1356:is real account of Stanislav Fisenko.
708:Stanislav Fisenko & Igor Fisenko.
568:does not link to an article about the
7:
752:as POV fork; generally per Bm gub.
81:
1317:, two of the cited fringe authors
1036:is article supporting the article
313:
24:
1453:— Let's assume for a moment that
928:has a clean history starting at
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1661:Strong gravitational constant
1467:strong gravitational constant
1056:) 07:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
1034:strong gravitational constant
1024:then according to efforts of
1018:strong gravitational constant
860:Strong gravitational constant
544:To continue the analogy, the
298:strong gravitational constant
100:Strong gravitational constant
75:Strong gravitational constant
1048:) 07:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
734:) 09:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
494:. At the moment the article
319:{\displaystyle ~\;\;\Gamma }
1136:Perm, (1999-06-09) 544 pp.
570:plum pudding binding energy
1735:
1701:04:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
1678:23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1648:18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1627:09:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1610:01:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1480:23:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1446:22:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1421:16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1402:16:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1366:16:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1348:As I already explained at
1339:16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1295:12:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1262:05:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
1247:22:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1233:17:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1218:07:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1192:06:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1125:07:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
1107:22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
1086:18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
1066:07:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
1005:15:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
985:15:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
959:03:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
944:15:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
913:08:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
762:01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
744:09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
661:19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
600:17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
582:23:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
537:11:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
483:18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
457:17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
420:07:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
402:08:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
382:04:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
285:17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
260:16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
69:05:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
613:. The notable aspect of
1711:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1132:The book: Fedosin S.G.
1655:We do have an article
1589:User:seshavatharam.uvs
1581:
1554:
1534:
1507:
1204:What does this prove?
802:) 04:45, 14 April 2011
564:. The article on the
554:aether Young's modulus
512:gravitational constant
349:
348:{\displaystyle ~G_{s}}
320:
225:have been disputed by
213:This article violates
80:AfDs for this article:
1582:
1580:{\displaystyle G_{s}}
1555:
1535:
1533:{\displaystyle G_{s}}
1508:
1032:). On the other hand
1020:? If you speak about
350:
321:
1564:
1544:
1517:
1497:
330:
304:
50:conflict of interest
1434:creation protection
1012:Do you speak about
546:Luminiferous aether
516:Fermi's interaction
1577:
1550:
1530:
1503:
775:was a question to
584:(formerly bm_gub).
566:Plum pudding model
361:strong gravitation
345:
316:
312:
310:
44:The result was
1553:{\displaystyle G}
1506:{\displaystyle G}
1477:
1399:
1153:978-5-9901951-1-0
987:
973:
804:
790:comment added by
641:Fractal cosmology
357:physical constant
334:
308:
67:
1726:
1713:
1699:
1697:
1640:
1586:
1584:
1583:
1578:
1576:
1575:
1559:
1557:
1556:
1551:
1539:
1537:
1536:
1531:
1529:
1528:
1512:
1510:
1509:
1504:
1471:
1393:
1319:just so happened
1097:says it for me.
974:
901:
883:
857:was copied from
856:
838:
803:
784:
572:. And so on.
354:
352:
351:
346:
344:
343:
333:
325:
323:
322:
317:
307:
208:
207:
193:
141:
123:
66:
64:
57:
34:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1716:deletion review
1709:
1693:
1687:
1638:
1567:
1562:
1561:
1542:
1541:
1520:
1515:
1514:
1495:
1494:
1254:Stuart.Jamieson
1117:Stuart.Jamieson
874:
858:
829:
813:
785:
335:
328:
327:
302:
301:
150:
114:
98:
95:
78:
60:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1732:
1730:
1721:
1720:
1704:
1703:
1680:
1670:betsythedevine
1666:Strong gravity
1657:Strong gravity
1650:
1639:Sławomir Biały
1631:
1630:
1629:
1612:
1574:
1570:
1549:
1527:
1523:
1502:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1455:strong gravity
1423:
1389:Strong gravity
1384:Strong gravity
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1298:
1297:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1206:Google Scholar
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1110:
1088:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1038:strong gravity
1022:strong gravity
1014:strong gravity
989:
988:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
926:strong gravity
916:
915:
815:Strong gravity
806:
805:
765:
764:
718:
717:
713:
706:
701:K. Tennakone.
699:
695:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
670:strong gravity
649:strong gravity
619:strong gravity
615:strong gravity
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
585:
550:aether density
524:Fermi constant
520:Fermi constant
500:Strong gravity
496:Strong gravity
485:
475:betsythedevine
471:Strong gravity
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
367:
366:
365:
364:
342:
338:
315:
273:fringe physics
252:betsythedevine
247:
246:
241:
239:COI discussion
236:
234:ANI discussion
227:w:User:fedosin
223:Strong gravity
211:
210:
147:
94:
93:
92:
87:
79:
77:
72:
54:Strong gravity
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1731:
1719:
1717:
1712:
1706:
1705:
1702:
1698:
1696:
1691:
1684:
1681:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1651:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1635:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1572:
1568:
1547:
1525:
1521:
1500:
1492:
1489:
1481:
1476:
1475:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1397:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1276:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1179:5-8360-0435-8
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:5-354-00375-X
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1141:5-8131-0012-1
1139:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
990:
986:
982:
978:
971:
966:
960:
956:
952:
951:64.229.100.45
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
933:
930:
927:
923:
920:
919:
918:
917:
914:
910:
906:
905:64.229.100.45
899:
895:
891:
887:
882:
878:
873:
869:
865:
861:
854:
850:
846:
842:
837:
833:
828:
824:
820:
816:
811:
808:
807:
801:
797:
793:
789:
782:
778:
774:
771:. During the
770:
767:
766:
763:
759:
755:
754:Beyond My Ken
751:
748:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
724:
714:
711:
707:
704:
700:
696:
693:
690:
689:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
664:
663:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
637:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:
608:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
540:
539:
538:
534:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
467:
463:
460:
459:
458:
455:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
430:
421:
417:
413:
408:
405:
404:
403:
399:
395:
390:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
362:
358:
355:, is alleged
340:
336:
299:
295:
291:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
274:
271:
267:
266:Strong delete
264:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
245:
242:
240:
237:
235:
232:
231:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:Find sources:
148:
145:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
91:
88:
86:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1710:
1707:
1694:
1682:
1652:
1633:
1614:
1593:
1490:
1472:
1457:exists as a
1450:
1429:
1425:
1408:
1394:
1379:
1378:
1345:
1318:
1314:related AfD
1303:
1278:
1129:
1112:
1090:
1072:
1009:
992:
921:
812:the article
809:
786:— Preceding
768:
749:
719:
678:User:Fedosin
673:
665:
627:User:Fedosin
622:
610:
587:
541:
504:see examples
491:
487:
464:The part of
461:
432:
406:
388:
297:
289:
265:
248:
212:
200:
194:
186:
179:
173:
167:
161:
151:
61:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1350:Noticeboard
1327:meatpuppets
1073:weak delete
676:article is
625:article is
514:, and with
508:gravitation
270:Non-notable
177:free images
1474:talk to me
1396:talk to me
1323:canvassing
1239:Xxanthippe
1210:Xxanthippe
1099:Xxanthippe
1030:discussion
783:, no more.
773:discussion
562:N-ray mass
300:, denoted
62:Sandstein
1598:canvassed
1382:Merge to
1016:or about
977:• Gene93k
682:WP:FRINGE
645:WP:FRINGE
636:WP:FRINGE
631:WP:FRINGE
1463:reliable
1354:Sfisenko
1308:Sfisenko
1287:Sfisenko
1095:Rklawton
997:Rklawton
800:contribs
788:unsigned
716:405-407.
449:WP:SYNTH
144:View log
1653:Comment
1634:Comment
1619:Fedosin
1615:Comment
1594:Comment
1451:comment
1426:comment
1409:comment
1358:Fedosin
1312:Fedosin
1304:Comment
1225:Fedosin
1184:Fedosin
1113:Neutral
1078:JoshuaZ
1058:Fedosin
1050:Fedosin
1042:Fedosin
922:Comment
877:protect
872:history
832:protect
827:history
810:Comment
792:Fedosin
736:Fedosin
728:Fedosin
698:(1974).
592:Fedosin
574:Bm gub2
529:Fedosin
527:useful.
454:Lambiam
433:Comment
412:Fedosin
374:Fedosin
183:WP refs
171:scholar
117:protect
112:history
1413:Bm gub
1331:Bm gub
1091:Delete
1026:Bm gub
993:Delete
936:Bm gub
881:delete
836:delete
781:Bm gub
777:Bm gub
750:Delete
653:Bm gub
611:Delete
558:N-rays
441:WP:COI
389:within
219:WP:COI
155:Google
121:delete
46:delete
1683:Merge
1602:Steve
1459:force
1438:Steve
1346:Reply
1130:Reply
1010:Reply
898:views
890:watch
886:links
853:views
845:watch
841:links
666:Reply
651:).
588:Reply
542:Reply
506:with
492:Reply
488:Reply
466:WP:OR
462:Reply
445:WP:OR
437:WP:OR
407:Reply
394:Steve
294:Steve
290:Reply
277:Steve
215:WP:OR
198:JSTOR
159:books
138:views
130:watch
126:links
16:<
1674:talk
1644:talk
1623:talk
1606:talk
1491:KEEP
1442:talk
1417:talk
1380:Keep
1362:talk
1335:talk
1325:and
1306:.
1291:talk
1279:Keep
1258:talk
1243:talk
1229:talk
1214:talk
1188:talk
1176:ISBN
1165:ISBN
1150:ISBN
1138:ISBN
1121:talk
1103:talk
1082:talk
1062:talk
1054:talk
1046:talk
1001:talk
981:talk
955:talk
940:talk
909:talk
894:logs
868:talk
864:edit
849:logs
823:talk
819:edit
796:talk
769:Keep
758:talk
740:talk
732:talk
674:This
657:talk
623:This
621:.
596:talk
578:talk
533:talk
518:and
510:and
479:talk
439:and
416:talk
398:talk
378:talk
363:"...
281:talk
256:talk
217:and
191:FENS
165:news
134:logs
108:talk
104:edit
1513:or
1430:any
975:--
490:to
452:--
359:of
326:or
292:--
268:--
205:TWL
142:– (
1690:SJ
1676:)
1646:)
1625:)
1608:)
1478:)
1444:)
1419:)
1400:)
1364:)
1337:)
1329:.
1293:)
1285:--
1260:)
1249:.
1245:)
1231:)
1220:.
1216:)
1190:)
1123:)
1105:)
1093:.
1084:)
1064:)
1040:.
1003:)
983:)
972:.
957:)
942:)
934:.
911:)
896:|
892:|
888:|
884:|
879:|
875:|
870:|
866:|
851:|
847:|
843:|
839:|
834:|
830:|
825:|
821:|
798:•
760:)
742:)
659:)
598:)
580:)
552:,
535:)
481:)
435:.
418:)
400:)
392:--
380:)
314:Γ
283:)
258:)
185:)
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
1695:+
1688:–
1672:(
1642:(
1621:(
1604:(
1573:s
1569:G
1548:G
1526:s
1522:G
1501:G
1440:(
1415:(
1360:(
1333:(
1289:(
1256:(
1241:(
1227:(
1212:(
1186:(
1119:(
1109:.
1101:(
1080:(
1060:(
1052:(
1044:(
999:(
979:(
953:(
938:(
907:(
900:)
862:(
855:)
817:(
794:(
756:(
738:(
730:(
655:(
594:(
576:(
531:(
477:(
447:/
414:(
396:(
376:(
341:s
337:G
279:(
254:(
209:)
201:·
195:·
187:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
157:(
149:(
146:)
140:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.