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