Deletion of Spiral galaxy dynamics

Comment: The only reason to keep this would be as an example of all the things that a Wikipedia article should ''not'' be.  Apparent , lack of , no |secondary or tertiary sources (except a gratuitous link to Hipparcos data), looks more like an  than an article about a tangible and well-defined subject.  Admittedly the author was advised several years ago to shovel all the crap out of a more conventional article into something like this, but if it actually described ''spiral galaxy dynamics'' in a complete and non-partisan way then likely nobody would have objected in the first place.  Did I mention we should get rid of it?  Possibly, as such a general term, there would be no harm in redirecting, but it is hardly a likely search term
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:GNG||WP:PSTS||WP:ESSAY)

Comment: without prejudice against succinctly summarizing the research in another article. Phys.org churns press releases and is not a |reliable source for science news. Softpedia is more about game reviews than science; I wouldn't count it either. The only source that clears the reliability bar and can be considered independent is the http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5944/news-summaries ScienceNOW story. This, and the fact that the original paper has received only a smattering of citations in almost a decade even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar, indicates that the subject does not stand on its own, and the way to give it |due weight is to cover it concisely as part of a larger whole. For purposes of comparison, Francis and Anderson (2009) has 7 citations on the Web of Science; checking one of those, https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08807 Zuker ''et al.'' (2015), we find that not only does it have 12 WoS citations accumulated in less time, but it only gives Francis and Anderson (2009) a passing mention and does not consider that paper's results conclusive. These theme holds in all the papers by others that cite Francis and Anderson (2009) on WoS: a brief mention among multiple other references. In addition, as mentioned above, the current article is a |copyright violation. Compare the following two passages, the first from Francis and Anderson (2009) and the latter from the "Bisymmetric spirals" section
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:UNDUE||WP:COPYVIO)