Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirians


 * 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   merge to The Sirius Mystery.  MBisanz  talk 09:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sirians

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I believe this article does not warrant inclusion. The one reference given is not a reliable source in my opinion. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand to include a clearer discussion of the sources that refute this so-called theory. At least five references were supplied when I looked.—I'm not thrilled with the inclusion of this piece of fringe science, either, but I believe I have to concede that while this is nonsense, it's notable nonsense.  My memory says Carl Sagan even discussed it in Broca's Brain.  I was tempted to suggest a merge with Dogon people but I don't believe this has a place in what should be a serious anthropological article, so all I'm left with is "keep".— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose a possible redirect target would be The Sirius Mystery but that article doesn't and probably shouldn't go into such detail on the alleged Sirians.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

removed the AfD template with an edit summary saying the issue is resolved. I've replaced it. dougweller (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is quite sufficient support for The Sirius mystery, but this rests on Temple's book, and the comment arising from it. The article does not directly cite the book, and I'm not sure why.  I think there's enough comment for this to be notable nonsense.DGG (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect without loss of data to The Sirius Mystery. The "reliability" of the sources is not really properly contestable in articles of this nature; the real issue with "reliability" would be whether the sources reliably report on what this branch of the folk religion or folklore of UFO believers actually believes about Sirians, and I don't think that's the kind of reliability that this is supposed to lack.  Whether any of this is true or just a fantastic belief is beyond our jurisdiction to determine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Sirius Mystery; if it can be demonstrated that the Sirians are notable independently from Temple's book, then there can be a separate article, but it needs to be based on coverage by secondary sources, rather than being written in an in-universe style. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. And rewrite to read like an encyclopedia rather than a fanzine ("The Sirians are amphibians: they can breathe either air or water"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is a topic for which a unique article is completely unnecessary. I would usually go merge, but, honestly, what is there to merge? Unsourced statements in the vein of "The Sirians are amphibians: they can breathe either air or water"? +Hexagon1 (t) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The topic is covered well in The Sirius Mystery. I can't see any content worth merging.  ClovisPt (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is certainly no reason for keeping this as a separate article, as The Sirius Mystery is a more appropriate place. Alternatively merge, but as Hexagon1 said above, "what is there to merge"? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Against Merge This article has definately established notability and passes WP:GNG. This article is also academic in nature and therefore encyclopedic. If anything The Sirius Mystery should be merged in to Sirians as the book was actually written about them. Valoem   talk  13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis article is anything but academic and anything relevant can be in The Sirius Mystery, a book which is not about 'Sirians' as a casual glance at our article or any review or summary of the book will show. dougweller (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, looking at the contributions of and, the creator of this article, it's possible that they are not the same person, but not likely. dougweller (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2009 (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.