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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Hollow Earth at least appears nominally notable. Hollow moon, however, seems to have almost zero notability. This article may be a complete hoax, in fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it might be a hoax? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the entire article is WP:OR except the in fiction section. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Found one source here. Other than that, nothing. Doesn't look like even the conspiracy community recognizes this theory. Graymornings_(talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of nuts maybe, but 62K googlehits on ""hollow moon" and "theory" seems notable. [1] and a few hundred more book mentions. Notable even if you do not believe it, but belief is not, last I checked, relevant to WP standards. Collect (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as marginally notable and cleanup. There appears to be several papers in the mid-60s about a "hollow" Moon paradox [2] and references therein. -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as in terms of early SF literature (see references to Edgar Rice Burroughs and H.G. Wells amongst other who reference a hollow moon in some of their stories) the idea had some note. I would also argue that that section ought to be expanded. Agreed that it could do with a re-write in general. Captmondo (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well written, NPOV and sourced. A recurring theme in SF literature. No idea, though, why this is described or categorised as "pseudoscience" - article doesn't say this idea was ever put forward in mainstream or fringe science. Even if "hollow moon" is not notable as a pseudoscientific theory, it is clearly notable as a SF literature theme. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have re-written the article, putting the "in literature" section first, and removing some duplication from the science section. If this is notable as a pseudoscience theory then the science section can discuss the pseudoscience "evidence" and the mainstream refutation. If this is not notable as a pseudoscience theory then we can drop the science section and the article becomes soley about a recurring theme in SF literature. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have lotsa "pseudoscience" theories in Wikipedia such as Global Warming, Evolution, Oort Cloud etc. And there are lotsa websites and books bout it too.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems okay to me as discussion of pseudoscience as it's now written. Tim Ross (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2009 (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.