Deletion of Lilith (hypothetical moon)

Comment: The wording of the nomination comes perilously close to . References to to Petit, Verne, and Goldstein-Jacobsen, in published works satisfies notability and renders  (which is guideline, not policy) in applicable. Since this article does, however, address other hypothesized second moons, I would support the article being renamed something that addresses its more wide-ranging nature, and turning this into a redirect to that article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Yes, it is riddled with OR, but it links to a couple external websites and it certainly satisfies . The article needs a thorough (and skeptical) re-write, but I am not convinced that it should be deleted. You might be able to make a case under , but right now I don't see it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:FRINGE)