Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

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 of the debate was: Speedilly kept due to overwhelming consensus.

Keep: No proof exists either way and their are many problems with the traditional account of the moon landings and gaps in the information that is currently in the public domain. Beisides this it is still very much a phenomenom that exists in popular culture and therefore does not need to be "True" or "false". The entry may need some sort of disclaimer but that is as far as it should go - DO NOT DELETE

• Your first sentence is patently false. I like better what one user added at the bottom of the page: "Well known belief held by several people." That is true. Wahkeenah 14:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

The Wikipedia:Deletion policy mandates that "Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace", the first of those four policies being the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which includes the mandate that NPOV does not mean giving equal validity to pseudoscience. There could be an interesting and relevant article on the belief among some that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax; but in practice, this article has been tended by editors who matter-of-factly refer to the Moon landings as "the hoax" and who clearly give equal validity to the idea that they are a hoax, as if this idea were equally valid as the evidence that the Apollo missions landed on the Moon. These pro-hoax editors have zealously reverted edits that try to replace hoax-as-equally-valid wording with neutral wording, such as by reverting to references to the "landing believer community" and "landing advocates", as if these were equally valid alternatives to their opposites according to the mainstream consensus. It is simply not NPOV for a purported encyclopedia to use such loaded, pro-hoax terminology, that would never be referred to by anyone who does not buy into the "moon landing hoax" idea. Since they are unwilling to avoid reverting repeatedly to blatant violations of NPOV, particularly by presenting fringe views as equally valid, this article has persisted in qualifying as "Text that does not conform to all four policies" and that therefore "is not allowed in the main namespace". Let them userfy it if they want, or relent to contributions by NPOV editors, but otherwise Wikipedia will be far better off once its policy of removing NPOV material from the main namespace is carried out with respect to this article. - Reaverdrop 00:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely Keep this is a totally legitimate page. NASA have officially answered questions on this topic, so if NASA can take this topic seriously, Wikipedia should also.
  • I think most of the answers have come from what might be called "NASA defenders". I don't think NASA themselves are nearly as interested in this topic as the moonbats like to fantasize that they are. Of course, when someone gets in someone's face and assaults them, like they did with Aldrin, they get smacked, and rightly so. Wahkeenah 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep this bad faith nomination by a user who wants to push his own POV on this legitimate page. For great justice. 00:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable, referenced. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's notable. Richardcavell 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - just because it's controversial doesn't mean it's unworthy. In fact, deleting it is liable to lead to further conspiracy charges by the moonbats. Wahkeenah 00:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? How exactly does a desire for a fair and equitable society translate into skepticism about moon landings? Ewlyahoocom 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • AHA! Finally something resembling a "delete", almost breaking the string. Yes, the idea that we did not go to the moon is pure garbagio, but it's a topic of some public interest. If there can be a page for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or the Flat Earth, there can be a page for this silly idea also. Wahkeenah 21:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep within the Van Allen belt around Wikipedia. Whether the state of the article is in question, the topic is plenty notable. ScottW 00:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply - It is a notable and worthy topic - but in practice it is kept in persistent violation of NPOV to the point of making Wikipedia’s credibility a joke. I’d rather have a decent article on this, but deleting it would be better than disparaging all of Wikipedia by failing to adhere to the Wikipedia policy that "text that does not conform to [NPOV] is not allowed in the main namespace". - Reaverdrop 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia has credibility? Wow, what a concept. I think this article used to have the "controversial" or "disputed" header - maybe it still does - and I would think that would suffice. Wahkeenah 00:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd remind you that there is text on the Roman gods (after whom the planets are named), who are no longer widely believed in and are widely believed to have been a hoax/made up. There's also text on all manner of stupid ideas (alternative medicine comes to my mind). - Richardcavell 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • A lot of editors have spent a lot of time working on making this article a neutral and well sourced document of who believes what. This is a bad faith nomination that flies in the face of all that effort. For great justice. 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply - I haven't been involved in the editing of this article, so my comment is based soley on the notability of the topic. From a quick glance at the talk page, there appears to be a fair amount of conflict here. And I suspect that this is one of many topics which will always have conflict. However, I don't think the answer here is to delete the article. If it were to be deleted, it would be recreated and the same conflicts would exist. There has to be another way to deal with this. ScottW 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • More to the point, there's a writeup on the Flat Earth. Admittedly, it's not quite so controversial. Our public school system is not a total failure. Wahkeenah 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If there are POV problems, that's a pity, but absolutely no justification for deletion. Scranchuse 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think a strength of Wikipedia is the highly controversial and contended over articles that no one is ever happy with, but which give a fair minded reader a pretty good sense of the arguments on both sides. I worked on the Apollo project during the summers of 1966 and 1967 and know how ludicrous the hoax notion is. But I was impressed with this article as it stands right now. It's far better to vent these kinds of theories than to let their supporters claim they are being suppressed. Another precedent is Holocaust denial. --agr 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Aha! A member of the vast NASA coverup that's more impregnable than the Mafia was. Awesome. So, how does it feel to be called a liar by the moonbats, and to be further told you should be OK with that and not pop somebody in the mouth when they get in your face, like Aldrin did (or should have)? Wahkeenah 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • • I'll say this again: Of course it is a noteworthy topic. But there's a huge difference between explaining about belief in Roman gods or alternative medicine or Holocaust denial, and writing about any of these things in a way that gives equal validity to whether or not they are true. I've tried several times to make modest modifications to tone down the pro-hoax bias in this article, and each one was simply swiftly reverted by pro-hoax editors. I think the controversial and contended over articles are great too - but not controversial articles that don't incorporate any contending because single-POV squatters revert anything outside their own single fringe take on it. I think this article deserves to be here, but only if it is edited by the community at large who can make it NPOV, instead of pro-hoax hobbyists camping out on it and reverting any non-pro-hoax edits over and over. In other words, only if Wikipedia's policy on avoiding NPOV violation by giving equal validity to fringe beliefs is actually practiced and is not just empty words. If we can't effectively make that happen then we'd be much better off with no article. - Reaverdrop 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It's so pro hoax - the opening paragraph - "The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are a series of claims alleging that the Apollo Moon Landings never took place, but were instead faked by NASA. Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts have rejected the claim as baseless." People could come away thinking that equal validity is given! For great justice. 04:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reference to "landing believer community" or "landing advocates" frames the issue as if hoax advocates were on equal footing and by itself violates Wikipedia's policy against giving equal validity to fringe beliefs. No one would use those choices of wording other than hoax believers, and no one would read them without assuming the writer gives at least equal credence to the hoax idea. - Reaverdrop 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep article content disputes to the talk page of the article. This page is about the idea that if you don't get your way the article should be deleted. For great justice. 05:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You brought up the content. I replied in kind. This page is about whether Wikipedia's policies against giving equal validity to fringe beliefs and that "Text that does not conform to all four policies [including this one] is not allowed in the main namespace" as stated in its deletion policy are adhered to in practice or are just aspirations that no one cares to enforce. - Reaverdrop 05:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep It's notable. Maxamegalon2000 04:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• It could be said that choosing truth over fantasy is a point of view. The fact that Moonbats are here actually gives us credibility because it shows that we can't do straw man arguments. It shows that the arguments we are refuting really are the best that the hoax proponents can come up with. Algr 04:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia requires verifiability, not that the information be truthful. There are plenty of references to the conspiracy theories about the lunar landings (regardless of how far fetched they are) to warrant an article in Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 07:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Extremely notable. DarthVader 08:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it clearly points out that everyone who is anyone rejects the claims as baseless, the accusations are definitely notable, this is a job for {{sofixit}}. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very notable. And even if it has NPOV issues, they can be resolved. --Yossarian 11:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but do not link to from main Moon Landings article, as this gives the pro-hoaxers the "oxygen of respectibility" Pmberry 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I suspect this is a bad-faith nomination. The only way to control pseudo-science is to disprove it. If Wikipedia is to be NPOV, it MUST have articles disproving major pieces of pseudo-science. --M@rēino 14:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Some people do geniunely believe this, and since it is a topic that has got a lot of attention over the years and is linked to the landings it should be kept, not deleted because someone doesn't believe it (incidentally I don't believe this article but it should still be kept). Ben W Bell 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is as good a summary as any on the www, and will presumably improve so long as the hoaxters don't take it over.

El Ingles 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominator appears to have a legitimate complaint, but it belongs at Requests for Protection, not AfD. ergot 17:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable Ruhrfisch 18:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per JzG. Article is notable. Nominator's concerns are understandable, but POV problems require vigilance, not deletion. When the article hasn't been edited by a true believer it provides good information on the subject. MilesVorkosigan 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Apollo hoaxes are an important cultural element, and all accusations are disproven in a desirable way. Nick Mks 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep With doubts. I have looked into the hoax theory, and I am convinced that the moon landings never took place. I am also convinced that the thruth will come to the mainline media some day, and Wikipedia should have an article about it until that day. But the hoax article in the Wikipedia is really telling anyone interested that the Apollo program was for real. I mean the opening sentences, the pictures, text under pictures, the longvinded "rebuttals". This article is not showing the hoax claim in a clear and fair way. That is why I am having doubts with "keep". The Apollo believers makes this page an Apollo propaganda page. (Axlalta 19:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
  • The moonbats' seemingly simple questions do sometimes require "longvinded" explanations. I have also looked into the hoax story (it's not a "theory") and found it severely wanting. But apparently it will remain an open question, at least for a few folks, until somebody decides there's a reason to go back to the moon. Wahkeenah
• Keep: While NPOV does not mean putting fantasy and reality on an equal footing, the article is perfectly legitimate because it's a real, encyclopedia-worthy pop culture phenomenon. Unfortunately, because the article is about false accusations, it's difficult to keep it objective, but that's a separate issue from deletion. Peter Grey 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. - CNichols 23:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• I count at least 23 keeps against the 1 original ask-for-deletion. At what point does this issue get closed? Wahkeenah 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy is that these pages stay up for 7 days and then an admin makes a decision on the 'general consensus'. Too bad - there should be a way for admins to speedy delete these kind of bad faith nominations, I reckon.--DreamsReign 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, 6 days to go, then. It will be status quo unless someone stuffs the ballot box with sockpuppets. Wahkeenah 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Speedily. This article needs editing and serious slimming down, but the moon hoax is very well known (as the links tesify) and the article is very well referenced. This nomination is clearly in bad faith. --DreamsReign 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is an example of bad faith. There is a legitimate question of how to cover fringe group theories without appearing to give them additional credence. AfD is just not the right mechanism if the fringe group is notable. Editors sometimes get too involved (I know I have) and forget that Wikipedia is a group process with a pretty good record of self correction. --agr 09:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This topic is notable enuogh to merit its own article. Someone please speedy close this AfD discussion. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 08:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a part of world history now. User:70.130.179.63 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Informative article, hard to find this info elsewhere.
• Certainly keep as notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Very notable. Referenced and excellent article.--Ryan! 06:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. -LtNOWIS 12:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and make plenty of re-directs and links, so it's easy for people to find. So long as this lunacy (pun intended) is floating around out there, shouldn't Wikipedia be a place they can come to find the truth about it? If NPOV reversions are a problem, perhaps the article can be locked. Darguz Parsilvan 12:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• This one's a no-brainer. Keep the bloody thing. Squirminator2k 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely keep. Excellent and relevant article for those who are interested in the deplorable state of mind of some of the inhabitants of our planet. DVdm 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course Very good compilation of information on this subject, and a great starting point. Lalala1087 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Certainly keep Lots of info and very much edited after long discussions rendering it useful and interesting. Educative! DrMilton 13:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I prefer to read this online than wait for FOX to rerun that special with that Mitch Pileggi guy from the X-files. Ewlyahoocom 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see the rationale for deleting this. I think the accusations are garbage, yes, but I also think we should let the facts speak for themselves. There's no harm in keeping this information available that I can see. 70.132.23.187 04:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known belief held by several people.--Josh 14:36, 21 May 2006 (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.