Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers


 * 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   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was proposed for merger a month ago, to no result. In practice it is being used as a content fork of the main article, Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, which also has a list of accusers. The same material is largely repeated in both articles, so what's happening in practice is that this article gets the version where the hoax has been proven to be real. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete I am tired of asking for reliable sources. A page should show its own notability by having sources to support its notability, and this page showed none about the accusers being notable as a whole.  Each individual accuser are quoted by their own primary sources and not secondary sources claiming them to be anything notable, most are actually liars(like Kaysing faking his own position as an Engineer when he got no such qualification)  MythSearchertalk 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a content fork and lacks WP:RS to establish significance for several of the individuals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete A pure WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK being used to push poorly sourced (and obviously false) conspiracy theory "proofs". The sources used for each proponent fail WP:RS, and these people individually and as a group fail WP:GNG. It's being used as a WP:COATRACK for these proofs, which a user is trying to push links to from the parent article. Verbal chat  15:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or Split - Delete as per above comments or split into a thousand articles each one breaking Wikipedia Policy in new and creative ways with multiple active/owner editors that complete ignore WP:N, WP:RS and WP:Fringe.--LexCorp (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge back into main hoax article. This article appears to have been started 2 1/2 years ago by a well-meaning user (and not a hoax believer at all) who probably figured the info in the main article was getting too large. Since the hoax story is largely demolished thanks to the LRO, we should begin to pare back the excess about this now-obsolete theory. The editor who created it has not edited since 2007, so we can't ask his opinion on the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, agreeing with Quest and Verbal. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per LexCorp RP459 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge but only if better sources can be found. Too many appear to be forums and blogs or inaccessible pseudo-scientific sites 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 17:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IMPORTANT REMINDER If you delete this information, you will likely restart an edit war. I went through this twice already with this set of articles. I'm not going through it again. If you all want to foment and participate in that edit war, that's up to you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it does, then that should be reviewed. We should not keep this kind of trash just because it "will...restart an edit war". Irbisgreif (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. No appeasement of the edit warmongers!  Favonian (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per A Quest For Knowledge,Verbal and LexCorp. Roughly 6% of Americans believe that the Apollo 11 moon landing was a hoax. We could, of course, list them all, but then we would be playing right into the New World Order's hands, wouldn't we? Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories seems to cover the subject quite sufficiently and without any WP:POVFORKing. Let's keep the information there. — Rankiri (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That poll was from 1999 and US-only. More recent polls worldwide show between 20 and 40% support of the hoax hypothesis. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No point in keeping this as a separate article.  Favonian (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork that simply lists a bunch of WP:FRINGE proponents. The sourcing is atrocious. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mild Keep Delete. I view it more as Summary style than a content fork.  It expands on the details in Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to delete - lacks secondary sources, most of the people are probably not notable individually. Merge anything useful. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. --07:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Merge back into the main hoax article by substituting the scarcer information there with the mode detailed information here. Of course there are problems with this article but these people are notable simply because they were bold to think with their own brains and dared to oppose the mainstream view. There are also scientists among them. Deleting the article would prove to the unbiased reader that there is censorship in Wikipedia (trying to silence inconvenient opinions), despite that it claims that it's not censored. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Verbal. It doesn't matter what nobodies think about the best achievement of the 60's, or Wikipedia. Nevard (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into the main conspiracy theory article. This is all pretty much repetitive and unnecessary. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:HOAX, which states that notable hoaxes could be part of an article in Wikipedia. The hoaxes are clearly notable because of the mass amounts of information about them. And not having the neutral point of view is no concern. All it needs is a small rewrite. I've flagged this article for rescue. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to have no relevance to this article. For one, we're not discussing Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories and, secondly, WP:HOAX doesn't exactly cover non-notable POV forks of notable hoaxes. — Rankiri (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Forking is still acceptable if there's one very large topic and it would be better and easier to read and understand if it's divided into a few smaller topics. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The information is not the same. There is far more here.  A brief mention of things in the main article, and far more detail here.  For those who say merge, what information would be copied over there, that isn't already there?  Is it the same as delete, or is there something that you believe should be added to the other page?   D r e a m Focus  18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:COATRACK. The article doesn't just list and discuss all notable Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers but tries to give their fringe and factually incorrect ideas undue weight. It appears to contain clear violations of NPOV. — Rankiri (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:COATRACK here, i.e. no hidden agenda. The weight is due because the size of the article is 31836 bytes vs. 101207 bytes of the main hoax article, which is 100% anti-hoax. Thus the weight is 31836 / (31836 + 101207) = 24%. And this is just the average percentage of the hoax proponents worldwide (see recent polls - U.S. 20%, UK 25%, Russia 28%, Sweden 40%). So the weight is exactly what it's due and is not undue. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is an unmistakable coatrack issue here: see COATRACK#. Secondly, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. From WP:UNDUE: In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. The article contains clear violations of this policy as it mostly describes the subject from the view of the accusers. Thirdly, do you have any actual evidence of these polls? According to ABC, the 1999 poll reflects the most recent data available. Not that it matters under WP:FRINGE and CFORK#, which specifically prohibit unwarranted promotion of fringe theories and creation of consensus-dodging content. — Rankiri (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The polls are documented here, with sources. As to the "coatrack", if the article is about the accusers, it can't avoid talking about the accusations. And I disagree that the point of view here is non-neutral. But all right, it's all clear already that you're all trying to silence the heresy, Monsignori. --Лъчезар (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should be anti-hoax, because that's the real-world consensus. That's really all there is to it. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Specifically which part seems to be undue weight? It seems to me they list exactly what the person says, their background, and then pokes holes in their accusations.  That's how it should do it.  These people are all notable, some having articles of their own even.  Its good to keep them all here.   D r e a m Focus  16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some extremely rough figures:
 * Bill Kaysing: 2.5KB of accusations, 0.6KB of rebuttals
 * Bart Sibrel: 1.5KB of accusations, 0.7KB of rebuttals
 * Stanislav Pokrovsky: 2KB of accusations, 0KB of rebuttals
 * Alexander Popov: 1.2KB of accusations, 0KB of rebuttals
 * William Brian: 0.5KB of accusations, 0KB of rebuttals
 * David Percy: 0.3KB of accusations, 0KB of rebuttals
 * Self-published books, self-proclaimed doctors of physical-mathematical sciences, criticized Fox News documentaries, Swedish tabloids... Did I really have to do your homework for you? — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Its the content that matters, not the size. If it takes longer to list the ridiculous claims and who the person is and the name of the books they've published, than it does to point out errors in their arguments, then so be it.  That is not a reason to claim undue weight.  And yes, you do need to do some work to explain why you believe something is undue weight, when you claim that in an argument.  Those who don't have a rebuttal, have their accusations disproved by previous rebuttals, or the article just has room to improve, new things added.  Tag that section with undue weight.  When their only claim of a hoax is that the rocket couldn't possible work, and the previous rebuttal was that those same rockets were used to put satellites into orbit just fine so obviously they did, then you don't really need to repeat the same thing.  Perhaps a summary after it listing all those who had the same arguments, and the most obvious way to debunk them.   D r e a m Focus  18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how it is possible for a number of sections not to list any rebuttals to the severely misguided and unscientific views on the authors and still not be in direct violation of the following WP:UNDUE statement: each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias. I would also like to know how an article that's supposed to cover biographies of all major proponents of the Moon landing conspiracy theories can devote less than a third of its space to discussing its nominal subject, leave the rest on discussing the theory itself, and still not be seen as a clear-cut transgression of WP:Fringe, WP:CFORK and WP:Coatrack. — Rankiri (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also wp:REDFLAG. Bubba73 (talk), 23:05, 1 August 2009 (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.