Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilith (hypothetical moon)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep, but probably clean up and rewrite to be about second moon theories in general, not just the titular one. Sandstein 22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith (hypothetical moon)[edit]

Article is a ridiculous combination of original research and synthesis of material ranging from Jules Verne's fiction to the "research" of the astrologer Spharial. Article fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYN, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOT L0b0t (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wording of the nomination comes perilously close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. References to to Petit, Verne, and Goldstein-Jacobsen, in published works satisfies notability and renders WP:FRINGE (which is guideline, not policy) in applicable. Since this article does, however, address other hypothesized second moons, I would support the article being renamed something that addresses its more wide-ranging nature, and turning this into a redirect to that article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete. Yes, it is riddled with OR, but it links to a couple external websites and it certainly satisfies WP:N. The article needs a thorough (and skeptical) re-write, but I am not convinced that it should be deleted. You might be able to make a case under WP:FRINGE, but right now I don't see it. Plasticup ^T/C 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is Lilith The Dark Moon, the only cited source for this is the "research" (if one can call it that) of an astrologer named Sepharial. The Petit and Verne mentions speak of a moon but not the Dark Moon that Sepharial claims to have discovered. There is some heavy original research and synthesis going on to connect these disparate claims and events. Article is sourced to 2 astrology books, one of which was written by this astrologer Sepharial who claims to have discovered this moon. Having just 2 sources, only one of which is independent of the subject, fails WP:N and WP:RS. WP:FRINGE tells us that "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." Article has no reliable sources so it fails there too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced. Plasticup ^T/C 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about an one hypothetical moon named Lilith or about all hypothetical moons of Earth? Your definition fails. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per L0b0t's excellent summation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not convert it to a serious account of the History of the hypothetical moon? Unless one exists already? I see Paul Schlyter has an account covering 1846 to the present day in German. I have added this start to the Talk page. -84user (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why L0b0t's arguments justify deleting the article rather than rewriting it. Yes, it's pseudoscience, and yes, Sepharial was probably a crackpot. But he's a notable crackpot, and his ideas are of historical interest. Further, astrology books are certainly unreliable sources if you want to use them to prove the existence of such a moon (which the article doesn't try to do), but they are reliable sources on the practices of astrologers, and the concept of Lilith is indeed used in astrology. --Ptcamn (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep But only as part of an article on hypothetical moons of earth (so, really a merge into a new article and delete this one?) I was about to agree, but look here [1] The same Google Books search on Lilith and "Dark Moon" turns up something in a Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology: Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, some other stuff as well. I agree with 23Skidoo, we should have an Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong Delete. The subject is interesting. Astrological theories are notable regardless of their correctness or if they seem ridiculous (as agreed this one is). The articles big weakness is a serious lack of references, given the subject matter (that is new to me) I can not help but wonder if it is almost totally made up. The section "In astrology" has had plenty of time to come up with references (September 2007), and should be deleted as these were not forthcoming. Although the article is quite old, and with the exception of the said paragraph "In astrology", I note that many of the reference requests date July 2008. Accordingly, the article needs more time to prove it's authenticity in other parts.Czar Brodie (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing this article does not need is more time. The current tags are recent but if you check the talk page and the article's history, you'll see it has been tagged, untagged and tagged again several times since its creation in September 2006. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a brief scan of the talk page and history. I could not find evidence of tagged, untagged. Can you direct me to a point in time or a link to this behavior? Otherwise my position continues to be the article needs references, not deletionCzar Brodie (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, first tagged here[2] on 27 Sept. 06, 2 days after article creation - tag vanishes in about 45 minutes[3]. Article tagged again on 28 September 06[4] - tag vanishes about 3 weeks later on 16 October 06[5]. Tagged again on 25 October 06[6] - tag vanishes on 15 November 06[7]. Tagged again on 15 November 06[8] (this tag is still on the article). Second tag (footnotes) added 24 September 07[9] but Smackbot didn't date it until February of 2008, this tag is still there. The article has had a lot of material added and removed from it but it has yet to improve. The 2 sources cited are the very same sources that have been there all along and they fail WP:RS just as much as they did in 2006. The article still suffers from the same lack of focus it did in 2006. The factual astronomy portions of the article could be the basis for an article dealing with the history of astronomy but this article is not that by a long shot. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced. Thanking you for the links, Czar Brodie (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A number of Google Books hits suggests that the topic is notable. OR, NPOV, etc. are reasons for cleanup, not for deletion. In addition to astrology books, I found a couple of more mainstream books[10][11] that mention Lilith within its historical context; apparently there were several claims of "new moons" during the late 19th century that proved to be false (just like there were many false claims of new chemical elements). --Itub (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub, your opinion was my thinking until L0b0t kindly directed me to the article's editors dubious behavior of deleting the tags requesting a cleanup, see above. What I think is the problem here is, is not so much the existence of Lilith as a false claim, this is noted in the "discoverers" page: Sepharial, but the various unrefereed information that springs from this "discovery" in the article. I am not against the mixing of astrology and astronomy in an article, what I find seriously odd is that given the amount of literature on both these subjects, no proper references were given to back up the articles numerous claims. The article has had plenty of time to clean up, deleting the tags requesting a cleanup is not, in my view, the proper way to address the problem. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the tags is, if anything, a behavior problem of the editor who deleted them, and should be handled by the usual dispute resolution procedures. It is not a reason to delete the article. The article may need a substantial trimming, but even some of the dubious "original syntheses" invoked in the nomination turn out not to be so original on further inspection. For example, the relation with Verne. See [12] (first result). --Itub (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though perhaps rename to something like "second moon theories" or "second moon hypothesis" to include claims not directly related to Sepharial's Lilith. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I was thinking that some sort of rename would be an option but hadn't thought of a good name. History of the hypothetical moon was suggested earlier, but it sounds a bit awkward to me. --Itub (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, all that hokum about fortune tellers would need to be excised in favor of actual history of astronomy type info. L0b0t (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.