Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon conspiracy and religion

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 delete. Mindmatrix 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon conspiracy and religion

Nonsense. Gamaliel 03:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or at best merge with Apollo hoax. Madman 04:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense and most likely a hoax. --Apostrophe 07:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, then redirect. The Land 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete wanglese
• Merge; we don't need two different articles on the same issue. Wikipedia does not support "POV forks" within its article space, where somebody creates a second, slightly-differently-named, article on the same topic as an existing one because he claims that the existing one is "biased" against him, as seems to be happening in this case. Instead, everybody needs to cooperate to get the existing article NPOV. *Dan T.* 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a hoax set up by a spammer in the Usenet newsgroup sci.astro.amateur. svanimpe 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing worth saving in order to merge... Not even worth the trouble. The name of the article is bizarre and unlikely to be stumbled across by anyone looking for real info, so no need to redirect. DreamGuy 16:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It sounds like opinion or "original research" to me. Bubba73 (talk), 23:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. For a moment I thought it might be well-sourced nonsense but neither of the two references given even mentions the word "moon". I don't think there is anything in here worth merging into Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. --Stormie 09:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I consider this so incoherent as to be unsalvagable: there just aren't any meaningful statements being made in the entire article as it stands. Even if someone does a complete teardown and rewrite, this still qualifies as "original research". No reason to save it. 141.161.54.98 09:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN material. -- Ze miguel 12:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Either a hoax or crazy eggs. Either way... MattShepherd], 13:22, 04 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The "references" provided don't even mention the moon landing. In fact, the most solid connection the entire article has to the moon landing is its general looniness. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 January 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.