Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The seventh earth

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 (just like the previous six times this article was deleted)(that was a joke). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:53Z

[edit] The seventh earth

The seventh earth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Describes itself as an alternative view of the nature of this solar system. I would say that "alternative" is putting it mildly: "totally cranky" might be nearer the mark. Surprisingly large number of ghits for "seventh earth" but is it notable? Certainly it needs to be re-written to make it clear that it is pseudo-science. And as for the arrogance of putting it in Category:Wikipedia core topics! -- RHaworth 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very reluctant delete - WP:BOLLOCKS from start to finish, and not enough adherents to be a noteworthy pseudoscience — but I do urge everyone to go visit their website which is one of the most entertaining pieces of insane rambling I've read for a long time. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FRINGE. Anville 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable fringe "theory" Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No evidence of notability. A Google search turned up 2,150 hits, but a check of the pagesl ocated turned up religious writings and even a guitar by that name. So as a "theory" about the Solar System the number of hits is much lower. --EMS | Talk 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. Someguy1221 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as interesting pseudoscience. There is no proof of notability though.Biophys 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I do not think it actually is intended as pseudoscience. It seems to be a deliberately fantastic piece of art, and the artist has succeeded in getting it linked. DGG 02:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Yes, that is most probable. But the illustrations are beautiful.Biophys 14:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. This needs references indicating that other noteworthy sources mention it before being considered notable (external links are to its own sites, and myspace/youtube). --Christopher Thomas 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable bollocks. Michaelbusch 00:51, 8 April 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.