Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi Moon base (third nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Moon base

This is a curious mix of fact and fiction, a testament to the fact that there is nothing so inherently absurd that some crackpot somewhere will not believe it. The only thing is, given that we lead the table of around 100 unique google hits, we appear to be leading the race to tell the world about this ludicrous idea. Exclude Wikipedia and the leading lights include YTMND and the Aryan Nations forums. There being no reliable sources out there, on account of the idea itself being barking mad, scientifically impossible (then and now) and 100% evidence free, this article is inherently original research. Not bad research, in that it documents pretty well the entire absurd conceit, but the linked sources are absolutely not what we would consider reliable.

From the deletion log at its previous home Nazi moon base, now a redirect:

  • 03:06, August 14, 2005 Geogre (talk · contribs) deleted "Nazi moon base" (Every reason, every criterion)
  • 17:47, August 13, 2005 Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) deleted "Nazi moon base" (hoax/joke article)

First AfD was a speedy delete, second was no consensus. I recommend a transwiki to Uncyclopaeida. Just zis Guy you know? 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, this is verifiable modern-day folklore/cryptohistory and we can present it as such. It's not limited to Ernst Zundel and his followers, as I had assumed. At worst, it can be merged to New Swabia, which is absolutely real. Gazpacho 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If this is verifiable can you please explain how to verify it using reliable sources? How did you verify it? Merging any information requires verifiable reliable sources too. Weregerbil 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article could use some reliable sources. Even one would be a start. Now it has Usenet postings, angelfire and 404 pages. Weregerbil 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, at worst, an internet meme. No harm in that.  Cdcon  18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears (and originated) off the internet, such as in games and pamphlets. Gazpacho 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So what are the reliable sources? Just zis Guy you know? 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Zundel's pamphlets and the Heinlein book (cited in the article) are all sources for the existence of Nazi UFO theories. We don't need to verify the truth of the claims to document them as claims, just like our other UFOlogy articles. Gazpacho 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (I crossed out the game because it doesn't seem to resemble the theory described in the article.)
  • Zundel's book is self-published; if it's just hijm, this could be a redirect. The Heinlein book is fictional, whereas Zundel claims it's not. It's the mix of fiction and fantasy which is part of the problem for me. The other part is the assertion that it's a notable Internet meme, when there are only around 300 hits, 100 unique. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per gazpacho. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep --Rodrigo Cornejo 01:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - a well sourced article on a subject of encyclopaedic interest - what more do you want? WilyD 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is ...problematic. There seem to be a few fringe (self-published, we-publish-any-crackpottery presses) books about it. The article should have a lead that says this is a joke by fringe nuts on acid, mix of fiction and more fiction, and no real historians take it seriously in any way. But where do you find a reliable source for that statement...? This is a somewhat recurring problem on Wikipedia: crackpot theories that are so obviously loony that no reliable source even bothers to waste the ink to debunk them. Weregerbil 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article already refers to it as a fringe belief - I'm not sure there's much that can be done - I'm pretty sure Template:Bullshit you shouldn't take seriously would have WP:NPOV problems. WilyD 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. The article is poorly written, but clearly verifiable (unless we conclude that the small publishing houses aren't reliable, but I don't see people arguing that). I think it's notable based on the references provided. TheronJ 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Self-published works are generally not accepted on Wikipedia to show the reliability of the claims therein. However, they still demonstrate that the claims have been made. The Goodrick-Clarke book, in any case, is totally legit. Gazpacho 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense —ptk✰fgs 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's cited to an expert on Nazi mysticism. Gazpacho 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment then, delete as hoax —ptk✰fgs 17:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The article doesn't claim that the UFO base really exists. Gazpacho 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now, following an extensive rewrite which does make it much clearer how tiny the support for this is. It's now sourced and although I'd hardly call it notable it is amusing enough that I bear it no malice :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge to Nazi UFOs. The article contains as much or more information about Nazi UFOs than about a Nazi moon base. I think it is more comprehensive on Nazi UFOs than that page itself. Eron 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per nominator following the extensive rewrite. RFerreira 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep UFO's are a hoax, we do not delete the article tho. Article is large enough to be a stand alone so a merge is unnecesary. --Cat out 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It is large enough to stand alone, but most of the content refers to UFOs and Antarctic bases - which are not the subject of the article, and which have their own article. The moon base content could be condensed to one paragraph if the UFO stuff were removed. Eron 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no reason to delete this factual documentation of wierd theories. Carfiend 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge to Nazi UFOs as per User:EronMain. --Cyclopia 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Probably merge in Nazi UFOs.It's interesting,like Flat Earth Society,if flat earth peopol stil exist,then i'm ready to beleav,in this article too.Even if it turns out to be a hoax,we should keep it as such.--Pixel ;-) 06:39, 12 August 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.