- 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 delete. I note the parallel merger discussion, but it is less in-depth and less conclusive than this one. Sandstein 15:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:POVFORK of Planets in science fiction. jps ( talk) 16:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- A POV fork is when a Wikipedia editor creates an article with an identical scope but advocating for a different interpretation of its subject not separate articles describing differences among other peoples opinions, even if the subject of those opinions are the same. Our articles on
Christianity and
Islam aren't POV forks of our article on
religion.
Abyssal (
talk) 16:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why should this list of fictional entities be separated from all other lists of fictional entities? My only way of understanding why this list might exist is to advocate for a different level of incredulity about the existence of these fake astronomical bodies compared to other lists of fictional entities.
jps (
talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because they're notable for being promoted as if they were true as opposed to science fiction, whose authors admit to inventing their characters.
Abyssal (
talk) 16:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's an interesting contention, but it actually isn't necessarily true that science fiction authors always admit that their inventions are false. See L. Ron Hubbard's work on the Scientology canon for a famous example. The lines are not clearly demarcated between A and B and, because of that, it's best that Wikipedia not be deciding who is being honest when they say that they think that their proposed astronomical idea is correct and who is being dishonest. It's very hard to get science fiction authors on the record confirming that they don't think any one particular invention is real or not. jps ( talk) 18:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because they're notable for being promoted as if they were true as opposed to science fiction, whose authors admit to inventing their characters.
Abyssal (
talk) 16:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why should this list of fictional entities be separated from all other lists of fictional entities? My only way of understanding why this list might exist is to advocate for a different level of incredulity about the existence of these fake astronomical bodies compared to other lists of fictional entities.
jps (
talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- A POV fork is when a Wikipedia editor creates an article with an identical scope but advocating for a different interpretation of its subject not separate articles describing differences among other peoples opinions, even if the subject of those opinions are the same. Our articles on
Christianity and
Islam aren't POV forks of our article on
religion.
Abyssal (
talk) 16:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please withdraw this. There is a discussion underway to merge this and another article. Please let that finish rather than creating a parallel discussion! Once the merger discussion finishes, feel free to nominate either or both articles for deletion if there are good grounds to do so.
Jehochman
Talk 16:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no reason to merge this article. It should be scrubbed and memory-holed.
jps (
talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- So you say, but there is
no rush. A bunch of other people are discussing that exact same issue. Why don't you join the discussion instead of creating a parallel discussion?
Jehochman
Talk 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- If there is no rush, then we can have parallel discussions. I think we should delete this page and perhaps the other page, but one at a time.
jps (
talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's a real pain because everybody has to comment twice (there and here), or we could end up with inconsistent consensus at the two venues, which will lead to a deletion review if this article gets delete while the other discussion decides to merge them. Please don't make so much unnecessary work for your colleagues. Jehochman Talk 17:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- If there is no rush, then we can have parallel discussions. I think we should delete this page and perhaps the other page, but one at a time.
jps (
talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- So you say, but there is
no rush. A bunch of other people are discussing that exact same issue. Why don't you join the discussion instead of creating a parallel discussion?
Jehochman
Talk 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no reason to merge this article. It should be scrubbed and memory-holed.
jps (
talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I hav some sympathy with this argument, but what I am seeing is an overwrought discussion about an article that should be speedily trashed. Something failed when this article was allowed to be created in the first place. I just don't see a reason to keep it. The content is bad, the concept is bad, and the suggestion that it deserves merging into a questionable other article is also bad. I don't want to make more work, but it seems to me that a merge discussion is not the right discussion to have.
jps (
talk) 17:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good. Let's find common ground. Since it looks like a snow close in favor of merging, why don't you request a closure and let them be merged. Then rip out everything that's poorly sourced. It is useful to document pseudoscience. I'm here because I'm working on
Planet Nine. Occasionally editors bring up pseudoscientific theories, not knowing that they are bunk, and I find it very useful to refer them to these articles and say, "See, this stuff isn't real science."
Jehochman
Talk 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't know how to request a snow closure of a discussion other than going to the dramah boards. I would not want this AfD to get in the way of the history-preserving deletion. Let's keep talking about this on your talkpage. jps ( talk) 17:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good. Let's find common ground. Since it looks like a snow close in favor of merging, why don't you request a closure and let them be merged. Then rip out everything that's poorly sourced. It is useful to document pseudoscience. I'm here because I'm working on
Planet Nine. Occasionally editors bring up pseudoscientific theories, not knowing that they are bunk, and I find it very useful to refer them to these articles and say, "See, this stuff isn't real science."
Jehochman
Talk 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Planets in science fiction. Another list of non-notable cruft is something Wikipedia can do without. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and do not redirect to Planets in science fiction. Science fiction is not pseudoscience or the paranormal. The only entry with an article is
Kolob, and the Mormons don't qualify either.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 00:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Entries in stand-alone lists are not required to be notable enough for separate articles. Abyssal ( talk) 00:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merge this article with the other into Astronomical pseudoscience. Rip out anything without a good source. Jehochman Talk 00:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, because the sources that cover more than a tiny fraction of this are completely unreliable. The only reliably sourced bits as far as I can tell is Nibiru - the rest relies on cranks like Billy Meier and Erich von Daniken or worse. Guy ( Help!) 08:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, by TNT if nothing else. Horrific WP:SYNTH to group these all together. If there isn't already an article on "list of claimed extraterrestrial abductions", there's probably good reason for that. If there is, the "Zeta Reticuli" story can go there. We don't need to conflate a very long list of Unarius Academy of Science's ideas with Mormonism and Scientology either. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural keep. There's an ongoing merger discussion on this article's talk page regarding this article and Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience, which has gotten several supports and no substantive opposition except for one person who wants to delete both lists. The other page has been kept at AFD, too, so we shouldn't risk doing something that would leave it a redirect to nothing. Closing this AFD and renominating both together would make more sense, since the topics are essentially the same. It wouldn't be at all inappropriate to copy to there the votes and comments that have been left here, since it would be a procedural keep. Nyttend ( talk) 03:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This is clearly not a POV-fork. Science Fiction and Pseudo science both involve things that aren't real, but that's where the similarities end, they're very different categories. ApLundell ( talk) 07:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. I note the parallel merger discussion, but it is less in-depth and less conclusive than this one. Sandstein 15:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:POVFORK of Planets in science fiction. jps ( talk) 16:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- A POV fork is when a Wikipedia editor creates an article with an identical scope but advocating for a different interpretation of its subject not separate articles describing differences among other peoples opinions, even if the subject of those opinions are the same. Our articles on
Christianity and
Islam aren't POV forks of our article on
religion.
Abyssal (
talk) 16:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why should this list of fictional entities be separated from all other lists of fictional entities? My only way of understanding why this list might exist is to advocate for a different level of incredulity about the existence of these fake astronomical bodies compared to other lists of fictional entities.
jps (
talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because they're notable for being promoted as if they were true as opposed to science fiction, whose authors admit to inventing their characters.
Abyssal (
talk) 16:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's an interesting contention, but it actually isn't necessarily true that science fiction authors always admit that their inventions are false. See L. Ron Hubbard's work on the Scientology canon for a famous example. The lines are not clearly demarcated between A and B and, because of that, it's best that Wikipedia not be deciding who is being honest when they say that they think that their proposed astronomical idea is correct and who is being dishonest. It's very hard to get science fiction authors on the record confirming that they don't think any one particular invention is real or not. jps ( talk) 18:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because they're notable for being promoted as if they were true as opposed to science fiction, whose authors admit to inventing their characters.
Abyssal (
talk) 16:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why should this list of fictional entities be separated from all other lists of fictional entities? My only way of understanding why this list might exist is to advocate for a different level of incredulity about the existence of these fake astronomical bodies compared to other lists of fictional entities.
jps (
talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- A POV fork is when a Wikipedia editor creates an article with an identical scope but advocating for a different interpretation of its subject not separate articles describing differences among other peoples opinions, even if the subject of those opinions are the same. Our articles on
Christianity and
Islam aren't POV forks of our article on
religion.
Abyssal (
talk) 16:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please withdraw this. There is a discussion underway to merge this and another article. Please let that finish rather than creating a parallel discussion! Once the merger discussion finishes, feel free to nominate either or both articles for deletion if there are good grounds to do so.
Jehochman
Talk 16:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no reason to merge this article. It should be scrubbed and memory-holed.
jps (
talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- So you say, but there is
no rush. A bunch of other people are discussing that exact same issue. Why don't you join the discussion instead of creating a parallel discussion?
Jehochman
Talk 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- If there is no rush, then we can have parallel discussions. I think we should delete this page and perhaps the other page, but one at a time.
jps (
talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's a real pain because everybody has to comment twice (there and here), or we could end up with inconsistent consensus at the two venues, which will lead to a deletion review if this article gets delete while the other discussion decides to merge them. Please don't make so much unnecessary work for your colleagues. Jehochman Talk 17:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- If there is no rush, then we can have parallel discussions. I think we should delete this page and perhaps the other page, but one at a time.
jps (
talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- So you say, but there is
no rush. A bunch of other people are discussing that exact same issue. Why don't you join the discussion instead of creating a parallel discussion?
Jehochman
Talk 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no reason to merge this article. It should be scrubbed and memory-holed.
jps (
talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I hav some sympathy with this argument, but what I am seeing is an overwrought discussion about an article that should be speedily trashed. Something failed when this article was allowed to be created in the first place. I just don't see a reason to keep it. The content is bad, the concept is bad, and the suggestion that it deserves merging into a questionable other article is also bad. I don't want to make more work, but it seems to me that a merge discussion is not the right discussion to have.
jps (
talk) 17:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good. Let's find common ground. Since it looks like a snow close in favor of merging, why don't you request a closure and let them be merged. Then rip out everything that's poorly sourced. It is useful to document pseudoscience. I'm here because I'm working on
Planet Nine. Occasionally editors bring up pseudoscientific theories, not knowing that they are bunk, and I find it very useful to refer them to these articles and say, "See, this stuff isn't real science."
Jehochman
Talk 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't know how to request a snow closure of a discussion other than going to the dramah boards. I would not want this AfD to get in the way of the history-preserving deletion. Let's keep talking about this on your talkpage. jps ( talk) 17:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good. Let's find common ground. Since it looks like a snow close in favor of merging, why don't you request a closure and let them be merged. Then rip out everything that's poorly sourced. It is useful to document pseudoscience. I'm here because I'm working on
Planet Nine. Occasionally editors bring up pseudoscientific theories, not knowing that they are bunk, and I find it very useful to refer them to these articles and say, "See, this stuff isn't real science."
Jehochman
Talk 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Planets in science fiction. Another list of non-notable cruft is something Wikipedia can do without. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and do not redirect to Planets in science fiction. Science fiction is not pseudoscience or the paranormal. The only entry with an article is
Kolob, and the Mormons don't qualify either.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 00:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Entries in stand-alone lists are not required to be notable enough for separate articles. Abyssal ( talk) 00:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merge this article with the other into Astronomical pseudoscience. Rip out anything without a good source. Jehochman Talk 00:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, because the sources that cover more than a tiny fraction of this are completely unreliable. The only reliably sourced bits as far as I can tell is Nibiru - the rest relies on cranks like Billy Meier and Erich von Daniken or worse. Guy ( Help!) 08:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, by TNT if nothing else. Horrific WP:SYNTH to group these all together. If there isn't already an article on "list of claimed extraterrestrial abductions", there's probably good reason for that. If there is, the "Zeta Reticuli" story can go there. We don't need to conflate a very long list of Unarius Academy of Science's ideas with Mormonism and Scientology either. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural keep. There's an ongoing merger discussion on this article's talk page regarding this article and Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience, which has gotten several supports and no substantive opposition except for one person who wants to delete both lists. The other page has been kept at AFD, too, so we shouldn't risk doing something that would leave it a redirect to nothing. Closing this AFD and renominating both together would make more sense, since the topics are essentially the same. It wouldn't be at all inappropriate to copy to there the votes and comments that have been left here, since it would be a procedural keep. Nyttend ( talk) 03:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This is clearly not a POV-fork. Science Fiction and Pseudo science both involve things that aren't real, but that's where the similarities end, they're very different categories. ApLundell ( talk) 07:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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.