Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo hoax in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nearly 2/3 consensus toward keep. There were arguments for a merge and a few who opposed merge. It appears that Escape Orbit made an argument for keep that stole the AFD after that point. v/r - TP 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Apollo hoax in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

POV fork, trivia page, clearly unencyclopedic, clearly POV and WP:FRINGE article name. Senior Trend (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because you can totally see a guy kick a pop can at 3:30 into the article. Seriously, this is nothing but a catchall for anytime the hoax was mentioned, no matter how trivial. It's trivia and cruft, pure and simple, and the sources are almost nonexistant. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per reasons stated above. Aeonx (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional: Noting from the first AfD nomination, much of this article could be very briefly summarized and incorporated into the Moon landing conspiracy theories article; I envision a sentence such as: "The notion that some (or all of the) Apollo moon landings were a hoax has appeared multiple times in popular culture, including ..." (A few significant examples could be mentioned with references - eg. Dark Side of the Moon, Mythbusters.) - Aeonx (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is just another non-notable content fork. Merge whatever stray bits of material have reliable, substantive third-party sources back into the article on the conspiracy theory.--Cúchullain t/ c 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think anything is worth merging into Moon landing conspiracy theories. (I don't see that it is POV, but it is definitely trivia, mostly unsourced, and unencyclopedic.  If someone had done a study on this topic, then maybe, but otherwise it is just a collection of trivia.)  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is OK in its revised state. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep "...in popular culture" articles are common on WP. I don't see any special problem with this one. It is also more interesting than most. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor is WP:I don't like it a reason to delete. I don't see a general movement to delete in popular culture articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm topic banned (as well as self topic banned) so I can't do it, but you could try nominating Scientology in popular culture and see how many people like it. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW MIA on WP seem to be Judaism in popular culture, Hinduism in popular culture, and Christianity in popular culture. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced,and seems to be original research.Abebenjoe (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Unsourced != unsourceable, and we don't need secondary sources to verify what a primary source (a cultural reference) says. Per WP:ATD, it would also be reasonable to merge this back into the main article, and the listings could be trimmed and rewritten. Thus, while I agree that the article should probably not continue in this specific form, none of the delete !voters have articulated a single policy-based reason to delete the entire article vs. a less drastic cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We do need secondary sources for any interpretation of the material, for instance how notable it is and how important it is to the subject. I have yet to see any reliable secondary sources that take the Apollo hoax in popular culture as their subject.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep First, the quotations from Bill Clinton and Norman Mailer have considerable historical significance, because they suggest mainstream acknowledgement of the reasonability of questioning the alleged moon landings. Second, some of the performing arts references may be similar hints, disguised as fiction--a well-known and often-used technique in movies, books, etc.  (Many if not most unauthorized film biographies include an absurd disclaimer that the film is entirely fictional and not based on any persons living or dead, when in fact every knowledgeable viewer knows precisely on whose life the film is loosely based.)  The Diamonds Are Forever reference is important for its very early appearance while the Apollo program was still ongoing; and Capricorn One for its highly elaborated and arguably realistic scenario as well as its appropriateness to the timeframe (during the 1970s, when various disparaged "conspiracies" were exposed as true, such as the Tuskegee experiment, CIA drug and mind-control experiments, etc.).--BeSkepticalOfAll (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge The In print section could be used in the main article (perhaps in a new section titled reception or in the current public opinion section). The rest of the article is just a trivialist, fruitlessly trying to organize everytime someone in popular culture has ever referenced the apollo landing as being a hoax.  Them From  Space  22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note In pop culture is something WP does well. In general the articles are useful and people who are not interested can skip them. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not a fan of "In popular culture", but this is a valid topic for an article.  Could do with a clear out of uncited trivia though.  The reason this article was forked from Moon landing conspiracy theories were sound See explanation here.  Re-merging articles would result in the same problems arising.  It also had the beneficial result of clearly differentiating references to a hoax in fiction, from references to a hoax in (claimed) fact.  Sometimes it's hard to determine the difference.   The nomination is also total nonsense.  Which POV is being advanced through the fork?  Which fringe theories theories?  Dislike for an article name is a reason to suggest renaming it, not deleting the article. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the POV issue. I don't see how it is POV.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Escape Orbit. The cultural points share a common theme and demonstrate the influence of this nonsensical rubbish on certain elements of society. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Steve Dufour, Escape Orbit and JH Hall. To back up Escape, I can't see what "POV fork, trivia page, clearly unencyclopedic, clearly POV and WP:FRINGE article name" means.  How can the pop-culture view be a content fork?  Notable examples can be kept, and trivia can be removed.  Pop-culture is inherently Wikipedic, because we can go beyond print encyclopedias.  Unencyclopedic really means (a) the nominator just doesn't like it, (b) the nominator can't grasp the concept of an Internet encyclopedia and its potential, or (c) it's better suited for a fan page or being transwikied to Wikitionary; I don't see how the latter applies.  A move or re-name can work for a badly-named article; WP:AfD is not the place to discuss that. 10-lb-hammer, your concerns can be addressed through normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is unencyclopedic is how the article is written, as an exhaustive collection of minutiea. The problem isn't the topic itself but how the content is presented; as a trivialist and not a summary of the topic. Most of our "in popular culture" articles suffer from this and something needs to be done about it. When articles have little or no redeemable content its easiest to delete them and let a caring editor rewrite the article from scratch.  Them  From  Space  04:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Like a lot of "in popular culture" content, much of this is unsourced, trivial garbage that few are going to read and no-one is going to verify. However, some of it isn't and the article topic is perfectly valid.  I do not agree that deletion is the surest way of preserving that content or improving the article.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If a reader is doing some research on references to conspiracy theories regarding the Apollo Moon landings, this is the article they need. Less contemporary topics have a place in Wikipedia, too.  Deterence  Talk 04:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Escape Orbit. The article would be improved by more references, but AfD is not cleanup. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I really think the unoteworthy trivia should be removed before any real judgment can be made. At the moment it looks like an article but once you remove all the pointless references to Ali G, friends, futurama and loony tunes to name only a few I can't see there will be much left to keep! I agree that the president clinton and Norman Mailer quotes are noteworthy, but I can't see that a lot else is of note at all! Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD isn't cleanup but in a case where if clean-up actually happened there would be almost nothing left then it should be taken into consideration. Polyamorph (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Trivia removed. Per WP:BOLD I removed everything that I considered to be un-noteworthy trivia of no use. Please see the article talk page for the content that I removed. Now users can concentrate on debating the usefulness of what is left, as opposed to the trivia that should never have been in the article in the first place. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That was more than just a trim. I would have preferred to leave that content and allow discerning readers to decide for themselves. But, given the witch-hunt above, I can see why you did it.  Deterence  Talk 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was clear consensus both in the current AfD and the previous one that there was a vast quantity of trivial information that needed to be removed from the article. It is better, in my opinion, to actually do that rather than perpetually discussing that it should be done. During an AfD the article does not have to remain static. If there are objections to the content I removed then there is a discussion on the article talk page with all the removed content, since it's an editing issue it should be discussed there. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that consensus at all. Erasing a large chunk of an article during an AFD is usually considered bad form.  If those are entries in notable media, then they belong in this popular culture article.  Reverting you now.  Discuss on the talk page if you believe you have a legitimate reason to remove anything.  Saying one thing is more notable than another blue link item seems rather odd.   D r e a m Focus  17:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's trivial pointless trash. Many users have said so. You should not have reverted my edits, it's not poor form to improve an article. Trivia like that does not belong in wikipedia, I left in everything I thought was actually notable and which actually significantly dealt with the hoax story, instead of just passing references. All you have done by reverting my good faith attempt at actually improving the article, as opposed to discussing the same points ad naseum, is advanced the position of those who wish the article to be deleted since there is no place on wikipedia for such pointless trivia. Polyamorph (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some evidence of the consensus I saw User:Escape Orbit mentioned pruning the article to a quarter of it's size and "Could do with a clear out of uncited trivia". User:Bearian said notable examples can be kept and trivia removed. User:Jclemens suggested trimming the listings. Comments on the older AfD that weren't simply !votes similarly implied a severe trimming of the listings being required. In fact the closing admin commented "the discussion shows that any problem the article might have with being an indiscriminate collection of information (as opposed to a legitimate WP:SS spinout) could be solved by editing it down to a reduced size". User:BeSkepticalOfAll highlighted some very notable points that were in the article and I kept those in and some more. With all that plus all the delete arguments I see a consensus that the trivial stuff has to go. If you don't see that then I don't think you've read the discussion thoroughly and more just acted on your own viewpoint, possibly shared by some but certainly not all or most. Consensus is all about fairly weighing discussion, not counting !votes.Polyamorph (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There is ample news coverage on the moon landing hoax conspiracy people, making it notable.  Seeing how well something notable has gone through popular culture over the years, is quite encyclopedic, and why most popular culture articles nominated end in Keep.   D r e a m Focus  12:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete My attempts at improving this article, per discussions on this page, on the article talk page and the previous AfD, to remove the un-notable trivia on this page have failed and were reverted by another user. I don't feel that there is any noteworthyness of this pointless trivia whatsoever and will not support keeping an article that contains so many references that fail our core policies on notability. There are some items in the list which do significantly cover the hoax story and I believe are notable, some are highlighted above by BeSkepticalOfAll. However if good faith attempts at improving the article are going to be reverted in order to support the inclusion of un-noteworthy passing references to the hoax then the only stance I can possibly take is delete.Polyamorph (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep after an admin reinstated my edits. However, I will only support keeping this article if it is agreed that the non-notable unsourced trivia that dominated the page at the start of tis AfD is not to be restored. The listings that remain are mostly sourced and significantly deal with the hoax, as opposed to being just passing references.Polyamorph (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Polyamorph, your approach to this article is starting to resemble an entirely obstinate my-way-or-it-gets-deleted. This is completely unacceptable. You have so thoroughly poisoned this AfD process that I strongly urge an admin to suspend this AfD and allow time for tempers to cool.  Deterence  Talk 08:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Poisoned? That's not true but I'm sorry if it's come across like that. I tried to improve the article per a consensus that I saw which I have justified. The Afd template asks users to improve the article to bring it in line with policy if they can do so. There are template messages on the article asking to remove trivia. That's all I've done, it was a good faith attempt at improving the article so that it can be kept. However, if you don't think that removing the trivia was the right thing to do then feel free to oppose it with some credible reasoning, I'm very happy for you to do so! Personally, I won't support keeping the article if the un-noteworthy trivia is restored. But I'm only one user so my support or delete !vote is not the deciding factor here. Overall consensus from the issues raised is. RegardsPolyamorph (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you're just one editor who appears to have an admin protecting his/her edits. In my experience, that makes it game-over for the rest of us.  Deterence  Talk 11:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was more another user had an admin keeping a close eye on their edits, nothing to do with me, but I 100% agree with the admin's rational for reverting the restoration of the unsourced trivia per WP:Burden. Feel free to provide some rational as to why that was not valid. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Except you didn't remove it because it was unsourced, but because you didn't feel those examples were important, right? If someone found a review of a television episode which mentions the fake moon landing, wouldn't you still be objecting to it being there?   D r e a m Focus  11:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said at the time and on the talk page of the article itself, you are free to provide a valid reason why the listings should be included. I'm not unreasonable, if you find sources that demonstrate notability then provide them! I never add anything to wikipedia without providing a source. You will also notice that I didn't remove any of the listings that were sourced. I'm not your enemy here, I'm trying to help improve the article. If I'm in the wrong then fine but please just provide some evidence of notability, it's all anyone can ask. But to be fair it's an editing issue now and should really be discussed on the article page. Unless I was wrong to invoke WP:BOLD and make the changes mid-way through the AfD. Although the AfD template message, other maintenance template tags and the overall consensus on this page suggests to me that I did do the right thing. Polyamorph (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. While you're demanding that everyone else jump through hoops, you're "justifying" your own unilateral edits with WP:BOLD. Do I even need to point-out the absurd double-standard here?  Deterence  Talk 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it, you don't like what I did. Clearly I shouldn't have edited the article so drastically mid AfD, now can you please stop attacking me personally over it and concentrate on the content. I was trying to do the right thing. Since neither of you have provided one shred of evidence as to how this information is notable or worthy of inclusion there is no more discussion to be had from me. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I don't think its a hoax, but there are alot of people who do, movies have been made on the so called conspiracy, and people should have a right to there own opinion, so keep.– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge with the main article on the conspiracy theory. No need for a seperate "popular culture" article about a fringe theory. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 27 September 2011 (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.