Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral galaxy dynamics
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
— NONE, NONE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:UNDUE||WP:COPYVIO (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)