Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hercolubus (2nd nomination)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hercolubus

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

No indication of notability. Only one of the references given is a reliable secondary source, and it mentions Hercolubus only in passing. Other than that it's original research, with a heavy dose of our editors' personal opinions. Even if this were a valid topic for an article, starting over from scratch would be more efficient than trying to salvage this page. Huon (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure that the deletion sorting above is helpful. If this subject is notable, which I doubt, it will be as folklore rather than science or astronomy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huon that it might be best to start this article over from scratch. In its original form it lacked neutrality and an encyclopedic tone. I attempted to edit it myself last week, and found myself nearly re-writing the entire piece, only to be flagged for bold editing.

Given that the topic can be argued to be an early Latin American model for an erratic solar system member that is finding its way into modern discussion among English-speaking scientists under a variety of equivalent names (a body answering the description of Hercolubus is making its approach known mathematically but is not officially photographed yet - hence no uniform name), it would seem encyclopedic to avoid complete omission of non-English terms that could be useful to readers pursuing further independent research. The biggest challenge, from my desk, is overcoming the concern about conflation via appropriate multi-linguistic citations, which may become a moot point as the approach becomes visible and observers in different cultures continue to name it according to the synonym(s) of their own ancient cultural records. ~L.G.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:COMMONNAME, articles on the English Wikipedia should have the most common English name for the topic. If this is about the same topic as, say, Nibiru or Planet X or maybe Planet Nine, we may want to note the non-English name in one of those articles, but we shouldn't have a separate article on the same topic under a non-English title. Huon (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 11:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any reliable sources for this; instead, a search reveals many fringe sites. Whether we call this non-notable, original research, or fringe, it needs to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think notability has been established and I can't find anything significant to change that. Maybe a brief mention at Planets_beyond_Neptune#Other_proposed_planets is warranted, but a standalone article doesn't seem to be. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. The only decent sourcein the article doesn't even mention the subject's name. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2016 (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.