Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploded Planet Hypothesis

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. --Coredesat 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploded Planet Hypothesis

Exploded Planet Hypothesis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Obvious candidate for deletion. As an article, there are no reliable sources and the topic thus fails the V and RS parts of WP:A. As an article on a scientific topic, it utterly fails the AS criteria of ArbCom-PS. There are few google hits, mostly to discussion boards and "Meta Research". There is essentially no media coverage, so the article cannot be saved by the Time Cube route. Philosophus ^T 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. MER-C 08:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (not decided yet). I do not necessarily think that this should be "deleted", as this is a valid historical hypothesis. However, I do not think that this article can be expanded: Could the main author provide some reputable sources to prove otherwise? Also, I think that the title is not very descriptive and confusing. A merge with solar system, or some related topic, might be more appropriate. In the absence of a response, I will vote delete. Lunokhod 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the valid hypotheses are already documented in other articles. See below. Uncle G 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• And the hypothesis that this article is covering is the modern hypothesis by Tom Van Flandern, which, if I understand correctly, uses his own pet theory of gravitation. It is true that the entirety of the current article could be deleted and re-sourced with proper sources to cover the historical hypothesis, however. --Philosophus ^T 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable references (either peer-reviewed articles or media coverage). Mike Peel 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This pseudoscience just seems too bizarre. Dr. Submillimeter 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of hits via google on this theory, it is a well known possiblity that a planet did exist between Mars and Jupiter. I do think this needs more expansion but I think it should be kept as it does link to the planet v article. --PrincessBrat 10:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Delete as per my comments below Uncle G @ 18:30
• Note that we already have Phaeton (hypothetical planet), Tiamat (hypothetical planet), and Fifth planet (hypothetical). This article does nothing that those articles don't already do, and do better. Uncle G 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If thats the case why dont all the articles link to each other since there are varying hypothesis on this subject? And doesnt this article that is being considered for deletion act as a gateway to these articles? --PrincessBrat 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Your question is unanswerable, because it takes a falsehood as a premise. The articles do link to each other. And the "gateways" to the subject are asteroid belt#Origin and Hypothetical planet#Planets between Mars and Jupiter. This article isn't a gateway to the subject because the hypotheses do not all involve explosion. Uncle G 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair point, I accept your above point and Im now stating this should be deleted - being in agreement this content is already covered, but note this is contrary to the original nomination which I therefore do not agree with! --PrincessBrat 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The nomination is based on the fact that the article isn't covering the historical hypothesis, but the modern nonsense by Tom Van Flandern which doesn't satisfy RS, AS, or any notability guidelines. --Philosophus ^T 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• deleteIwould support this if there were any discussion outside http://metaresearch.org/, the personal pseudojournal of the guy who thought of this version of the hypothesis. DGG 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of any reliable sources; all that needs to be said in general is already covered in other articles. Chrislintott 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I added in the references for the EPH material, haven't had time to start the rest, should clear up some of the "pseudoscience" problem. --Momentendz (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

• Delete per WP:FRINGE or just possibly redirect to Phaeton (hypothetical planet). Anville 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The fact that Tom Van Flandern himself is considered notable does not make any individual piece of his silliness notable. This theory fails to meet the test in WP:SCIENCE at all (which I admit is still just proposed but provides a useful baseline for cases like this one): It neither has achieved recognition in the scientific mainstream nor has it garnered significant attention in general. So it is quote non-notable, and also is OR. --EMS | Talk 21:42, 9 March 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.