Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific)

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 speedy keep, per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planets proposed in religion and ufology (neé Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific))[edit]

Whoa boy. What do you call something that is hypothetical and non-scientific? I'd call it a bad compromise. Inclusion criteria essentially requires original research to determine that the planet is "hypothetical" (rather than fictional) yet "non-scientific" (rather than "scientific"). We have plenty of lists where these things can get merged to, the obvious being List of fictional planets. However, this list seems only to serve as a POV-platform (that is, an illegal WP:POVFORK) for those who are mad that there is no scientific evidence for their imaginary proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Since these planets are claiming to be real based on non-scientific criteria, a merge to Planets in science fiction (to which List of fictional planets redirects) would not be appropriate. The question remains, however, whether this list is a useful way to organize information. Certainly many people have proposed Atlantis-like planets, but they are essentially unrelated to each other. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per Tim Vickers, below. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move, the title is the problem, not the content. This list does not overlap with Planets in science fiction, so I'd recommend renaming it to Planets in religion, ufology and mythology. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please, please please don't delete this article. I don't like it either, but it is the ONLY way to keep crazy people from swamping List of hypothetical Solar System objects with crackpot planets. Never mind that there's no scientific evidence for any of them, people still believe they exist, and so they're not fictional.Serendi ^pod ous 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been BOLD and moved the article to a new name. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make sure all planets included in the list meet notability and are discussed with NPOV. Conspiracy theories are generally accepted in Wikipedia provided they have been covered in reliable secondary sources, even if the only notable thing about it was the fact that someone debunked it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but get some sources. Useful article that isn't covered in Planets in science fiction or List of hypothetical Solar System objects - they aren't fiction in that they're not from Star Trek etc., but they're not hypothetical in that the scientific community doesn't recognize them. I don't know if the name change works; it sounds like we're trying to say "Planets and their role in religion, ufology, and mythology." How about Planets proposed by religion, ufology, and mythology or Hypothetical planets in religion, ufology, and mythology? Graymornings_(talk) 18:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Hypothetical' was terrible. It is now called Planets in religion, ufology and mythology which is possibly the best and most accurate title. dougweller (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think "mythology" in the new title is too ambiguous, as the first thing that "Planets in mythology" brings to mind is mythological accounts of the actual planets. How about "Fictitious planets [not the same thing as 'fictional planets'] in religion, ufology and mythology", or even "Imaginary planets in …"? Deor (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; people actually believe these planets exist. If we call these planets fictitious or imaginary, then we're just as guilty of POV as those people who say all religions are stupid and that anyone who believes in them is psychotic. Serendi ^pod ous 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we need some way to distinguish these planets from the ones everyone can see in the sky. The article doesn't mention mythology at all, so the "mythology" part of the title can just be dropped. "Planets postulated in religion and ufology"? Deor (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine though I would say, "proposed" rather than "postulated". Serendi ^pod ous 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith isn't related to UFOs or religion. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't a planet either. And probably should be in list of hypothetical solar system objects, since it was claimed to have been observed through a telescope.Serendi ^pod ous 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Lilith to List of hypothetical Solar System objects Serendi ^pod ous 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Worthwhile article outside of the debate rgarding it's name. Artw (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually makes more sense than one would guess from its title, I suppose. Meets a need, which I postulate as a reason for keeping an article. Collect (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Agree with above arguments. It meets a need that isn't fulfilled by other articles on planets. The title is close to a catch-all for Planets in non-scientific belief systems.—RJH (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (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.