Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth mysteries

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 keep. Sr13 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth mysteries

Earth mysteries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

"Earth mysteries" isn't a subject, it's one of dozens of terms used in crank pseudoscience to describe anything they think is odd. The subject is covered by other articles. SchmuckyTheCat 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The nomination makes the case for keeping this stub. The term is used by some people, and we have other articles covering the topic in greater detail. So long as the stub rightly directs people to that more extensive coverage, it serves a useful purpose. It requires some edits for NPOV ("multi-disciplined (holistic) approach?") but is otherwise fine. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The right way to direct people to more coverage is delete then redirect. SchmuckyTheCat 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The nominator isn't even really contesting the article, but the subject of the article. Yeah, "earth mysteries" is complete and utter pseudoscience, the article says as much. That's exactly how Wikipedia should treat it. Explain what it is, explain why it's flawed. No valid reason to delete here. --JayHenry 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "earth mysteries" is being used not as a subject in itself, but as an umbrella term for a bunch of concepts, we already have that list, and this term should redirect to it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Earth mysteries covers some of the same topics as the List of pseudosciences, but in no way does it apply to all of them. The way the article is written "Earth mysteries" is, in fact, the subject of the article. It's a short article, and it's very clearly not redundant with the list of psuedosciences. Look, people who follow Earth mysteries are completely wrong. But Wikipedia has lots of articles about people, groups and movements that are completely wrong. My point is that "earth mysteries" is a belief that some people (sadly) ascribe to, and as such, it would be derelict for us to delete it. --JayHenry 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Prehaps this should be a category rather than an article Think outside the box 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as a valid form of pseudoscience, worthy of standing on its own. Sure, the article and the belief itself are both flawed, but at least the former can be fixed... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is a very widely used term and the article needs expanding, not deleting. "Pseudoscience" is certainly not a reason to delete - want to take a stab at nominating Scientology and see what happens? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Sidenote: someone please take that stab - I would love to see that discussion. CharacterZero | Speak 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you'd suddenly wish you'd disabled "receive email" in your preferences... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. This article mentions in the intro that scientists are skeptical of it, but then presents only "true believer" references, making it POV. I question that any pseudoscience is "valid." It looks like a linkfarm and catalog of pseudoscience books. Edison 18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The best way to deal with POV is to balance an entry, not delete it. perfectblue 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: A broad and oft used term covering a wide variety of phenomona that includes both pseudoscientific and non-pseudoscientific topics. While it might be true that the "subject" is covered by other pages, but this entry isn't just covering the subject of Earth Mysteries, it's covering the term too, which isn't really covered elsewhere. There is no good reason for Earht Mysteries not to be in Wikipedia. - perfectblue 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but clean up (specific citations and the external links can be pruned) and possibly merge with the afornamed ancient mysteries (now "esoteric history"). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - clean up and be more specific as to where the references are being used (references are there, the problem is I cannot tell where they are being used in the article) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a well-used term for a range of mysterious things (or pseudosciences if you want). I've even seen it on bookshop and library shelves. Not believing something is true is not grounds for an AfD. Totnesmartin 20:59, 24 May 2007 (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.