Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetarium 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarium hypothesis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable. The only source provided for this hypothesis is the article in which it was proposed. The other two sources for the article do not mention the topic but discuss related topics. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do a search for sources other than those already appearing in the article? There appear to be quite a few out there and I just added a couple.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sourcing seems adequate if not ideal... ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added two more independent sources that criticize this hypothesis yet acknowledge it. Nimuaq (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. With those I think the article is justified. I still think the "hypothesis" is more like a minor thought experiment than anything of real importance. As the critics said it can not be disproved so has little value in science. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My initial response was exactly the same, but the fourth source adds ([1]) (...) it merits the term hypothesis rather than scenario because it offers testable predictions.. Nimuaq (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does? I will have to check that out. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I don't understand how we could know what a "k3 civilization" could or couldn't do.Jaque Hammer (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that it has sources seems to pass all criteria for an article. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate sources found. -- œ ^™ 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.