Talk:Dark star (dark matter)

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dark stars in modern era?

I don't think so. I don't think this is what the sources are suggesting. And if a 4 to 200 AU object can capture enough WIMPs in the modern era to be a dark star, we'd certainly know about it by now. --Yaush (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read through some of the sources, would you be willing to make a cleanup pass on the article? Per the template at the top, there aren't any reference tags associating statements with specific sources, and correlating the two would be a good way to prune dubious material.

If you do decide to do this, I suggest copying any pruned or unsourced material to the talk page for review (after removing it from the article), so that nobody's toes are stepped on. If you'd prefer not to revise the article, that's fine, too; it's just been tagged for a while, so it doesn't look like people maintain it very frequently. --Christopher Thomas (talk)

Notability

I've tagged this for notability. As far as I can find, all work on this is by a single small group of authors. Secondary accounts are just the typical sensationalist churn from the pop-sci press. I see no evidence that anyone else in the scientific community has paid enough attention to this in a way that could sustain a neutral article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]