Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiamat (hypothetical planet)

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 Redirect to Hypothetical planets. Several users suggested merging to this or a similar article; this looks like the best bet, since other ones like Fifth planet (hypothetical) are under discussion to be merged themselves. Though this is crankery it does seem to have some amount of impact and ought to be covered, but since the relevant information is there already, a redirect will suffice. Cúchullain ^t/c 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamat (hypothetical planet)[edit]

I'm unable to find a single reliable source that discusses this at all. There are a few mentions in passing but that's it. The best I can come up with is the Skepdic entry. I had prodded this but the prod was removed with the justification that "it is referenced in Michael Tsarion's work, and also linked in the Michael Tsarion Wikipedia entry" Being mentioned by a fringe occultist is not a good reason to keep an article. JoshuaZ 02:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fringe scientific theory has an annoying habit of being unreliable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter bollocks. There are interesting discussions to be had about the asteroid belt, the formation of the moon and possible lost planets in the early solar system, this however isn't any of them. Nick mallory 03:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to write acceptable articles about bullocks and hoaxes. Don't just vote delete because the subject might not be true. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zechariah Sitchin's work, in particular The Twelfth Planet, presents a very extensive version of this theory, which has quite a wide following (added: not among scientists, of course). This is something that Wikipedia should cover, although with a clear emphasis on the fringiness of it. By the way -- contrary to the rather odd classification in this article -- Sitchin's work is not literary, although its status as "nonfiction" might be questioned. ;-) -- Visviva 04:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added: I've done some very rough cleanup; lacking any actual sources (even of the pseudoscientific kind), there's not much more I can do. -- Visviva 04:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely ridiculous theory, but Zecharia Sitchin is a reliable source and the fact it has been used in fiction shows it's worth writing about. Might be mergeable into the "fifth planet" article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Nibiru (hypothetical planet) was redirected to Zecharia Sitchin. Uncle G 12:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, depends what you mean by 'reliable source' I suppose. After reading his article I wouldn't trust Zecharia Sitchin with my neighbour's cat for the afternoon. "He attributes the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Annunaki (or Nephilim) from a hypothetical planet named Nibiru in the solar system." I mean, really...Nick mallory 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Phaeton (hypothetical planet) and Fifth planet (hypothetical). These are apparently just different terms for the essentially "same" hypothetical planet, with some variations in theories about it. Between them I think they have enough sources for an article. PrimeHunter 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Zechariah Sitchin article is all that's necessary for this. Giving separate pages for every little bad idea he had violates WP:NPOV policy by giving it WP:UNDUE weight. At best it's a redirect, but based upon the clumsiness of the name nobody would be typing it in like that, so no redirect is even necessary, except possible for old links elsewhere (which should be changed instead). DreamGuy 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is shared by more people than just Sitchin. Redirecting it to his biography means it would lack weight it actually deserves. It's not just a fringe theory, there's been multiple writings published on the idea by more people than just Sitchin, which means it falls within the verifiability policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- unless you know Stichin's theory, you're unlikely to look on his page, whereas if you've heard of "planet Tiamat" that will be what you look for. Plus, leaving it within Stichin means other scientists' theories on Tiamat-type planets can't be added, whereas linking theories from Stichin would let Wiki composite all theories under their common subejcts. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Delete and update Tiamat (disambiguation) to refer readers to the Zechariah Sitchin article. DreamGuy's analysis pretty much says it all. This article cannot be merged with fifth planet (hypothetical) since this is a totally different and non-mainstream theory whose inclusion in that article would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --EMS | Talk 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wrong or right it looks like a real theory. Discussion to merge as per PrimeHunter should be opened. Nabla 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zecharia Sitchin, mention at fifth planet and Tiamat dab page. 132.205.44.134 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quite a bit of the article talks about an asteroid progenitor planet, but which is not Tiamat, so should not be in this article in the first place, and the fictional planet around the black hole has nothing to do with the fifth planet. The Phaeton (hypothetical planet) article expounds a similar theory, so perhaps it would be better to have a asteroid belt progenitor planet article instead, with everything merged there. 132.205.44.134 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Phaeton (hypothetical planet) - The article generally lacks good references and so should be considered unverifiable. Hence, the material itself should probably be deleted. However, a redirect (or the addition of some referenced material) to Phaeton (hypothetical planet) may be appropriate given that the two topics are very similar. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Phaeton (hypothetical planet) and Fifth planet (hypothetical), because the essential concepts seem to overlap, and between the three of them, perhaps enough sources could be found to support one developed article rather than three separate articles about what sounds like variations on the same idea. --Kyoko 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if that were done, what would be the appropriate title? (surely not 5th planet? (ie normally considered Jupiter) 70.55.90.138 04:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about Hypothetical planets, with sections about Tiamat, Phaeton, etc.? Wait, it seems that there is already an article there. Maybe the content could be incorporated into that article instead. --Kyoko 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, that wouldn't work because the parent article would get much longer if it incorporated everything that is included about Tiamat and Nibiru. Perhaps an article about Hypothetical planets (Sitchin theory) might work for Tiamat and Nibiru, because they seem to be closely linked in Sitchin's conception of the solar system. Personally I don't believe in the theory, but it does seem to have had some cultural impact, if you read the article about Burak Eldem. I'm also fairly certain that it was mentioned on a History Channel show about hypothetical threats to the Earth. --Kyoko 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because this is fringe science or pseudoscience is not a good reason to delete this page, also the concept of this hypothetical planet Tiamat as proposed by Sitchin is conciderably different from that of Phaeton or Planet V or any conventional hypothetical destroyed Fifth planet theory, to mention one reason for this Sitchin also mentions it was populated by highly intelligent aliens. Also subjects which are highly controversial should not be deleted because of this, nonetheless there should also be mention of criticism and skepticism to explain why this would be unacceptable or highly unlikely to main stream scientists. On the page their might best also be mention of a more scientific view of this hypothesis. But still, because the page lacks some information is no good reason to delete the whole page.
In case it is decided to remove this page: Redirect to Zecharia Sitchin, Do not delete the history of this page
80.201.101.74 12:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The problem is that no references can be found for this article. At least for other pseudoscience concepts, it is possible to find articles that discuss the subjects. (And why is it so important to keep the history?) Dr. Submillimeter 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Very, VERY useless article. Un sourcable. Per nom. G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:22, 22 June 2007 (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.