Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Skeleton


 * 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. JForget 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Moon Skeleton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I found the creator of this article adding a link to this at List of conspiracy theories‎ - " another theory claims that this story is just part of a disinformation campaign to prevent or delay the disclosure of an extraterrestrial skeleton." Even the article has no reliable sources calling it a skeleton, and the lead says it is 'the unofficial name'. I have done a search and find no evidence that it meets WP:Notability. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No other sources have been found, so it does not meet notability criteria for its own article. However, it might merit mention under another related Moon article. I recommend merging with South_Pole-Aitken_basin article or De_Gerlache_(crater) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka2uya2ep (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge about one line's worth to Topography of the Moon. Lady  of  Shalott  16:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I couldn't find a source for this name; it seems like OR. Hence I'm not sure a merge would be a good idea.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Unable to support a keep or merge at this point.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Comment Without a reliable source the article might as well claim the moon is made of cheese. -- Kheider (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, unsourced, possibly even bordering on a hoax. The feature in question doesn't even look like a skeleton. Why did you do it (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The content of the article and the content of the cited references fail to distinguish this from something some kid just made up. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - apparently original research/made up, lacking any third-party references. Robofish (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks like OR to me. Airplaneman  talk 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator.Edward321 (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per ^^^ JBsupreme  ( talk ) 09:48, 4 March 2010 (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.