::::::::: "solid" Bullshit. Posting the full text for discussion would be fair use, but it would violate WP:NOTFORUM, so I'll just mail a copy to anyone wishing to see for themselves. 
 ::::::::: "quantitative" Bullshit. The entirety of numbers in the text: 1900, 1905, 1915, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 100 000. Three dates, eight numbered references, and two mentions of "100 000 quasars". That's not a quantitative paper. 
 ::::::::: "reviewed and accepted by PhD astrophysicist" Bullshit. If you wish anybody to believe that, provide contact information for the purported reviewers. No self-respecting astrophysicist would give this kind of incompetent drivel a passing grade. 
 ::::::::: The above aside, you are completely missing the point. I requested the paper on the off chance that it referred to existing material on the antimatter theory or maybe contained information supporting your claim that it is encyclopedic. It doesn't and it isn't.