Talk:Nazca Line Pseudoscience

What to do?
Hi and, I see that you have advised  on their contributions on the topic of the Nazca lines. The material they were working with would have imbalanced the main article on this topic, but having reviewed the new article here, I don’t feel there’s enough material to warrant a stand alone article.

I suppose this article could be left as it is, but I’m not comfortable with that given the very incomplete coverage it offers of a contentious topic. My preference is to simply redirect this to the main article, but I’d appreciate others’ views. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I Support a redirect. Von Däniken as one of only two references is unconvincing. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)