Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible Martian Sculptures


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible Martian Sculptures
It's not even original research; more like musings - and there's no obvious way to turn it into a real article - DavidWBrooks 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not least because it is easy to dismiss them as pareidolia.  But WP:NOR comes into it somewhere, I expect.  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This credulous bunk again, Phew. This site is hysterical: .--Fuhghettaboutit 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think presence of "weird" rocks on Mars might be worth a mention on a Trivia section in Mars or Life on Mars, but not as an article of its own. LjL 23:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep expand and reference - def. notable --Biggfishny 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, or merge with Life on Mars - by the way, there is practically no such thing as 3D pareidolia -- azeltsman2 02:10, 11 May 2006 (EST)
 * Delete Hogwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as original research. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Possible Complete Bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To Biggfishny: excuse me, what do you mean with "def. notable"? Definitely? Anyway, the problem is that I'm afraid there is little to reference, besides the article author's own website, which isn't even remotely peer-reviewed. If I'm wrong then of course it's another matter, but the very author said that, to his knowledge, that rock was never discussed by anyone but him! LjL 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete it's all POV and OR. -- Scientizzle 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that Wikipedia send an official request to NASA for comment on the article in its original form, because if they mostly agree with the article - that amounts to article being in agreement with 'scientific community' opinion.

The appropriate e-mail address for such a request is: marsoutreach@jpl.nasa.gov

azeltsman2 6:40, 12 May 2006 (EST)
 * Comment: I would suggest that that would be akin to sending an official request to the American Psychiatric Association to comment on whether they think exorcism is the best way to treat schizophrenia to check on 'scientific community' opinion --Fuhghettaboutit 12:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Original research. I'd rather not waste NASA's time on this unsubstantiated supposition. &mdash; RJH 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the email that I have sent to NASA, along with a copy to wikipedia board of directors:


 * Hi marsoutreach!


 * Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
 * A discussion is currenly going on about an article Possible Martian Sculptures
 * The discussion can be seen at
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Possible_Martian_Sculptures


 * Is, in your opinion, the article Possible Martian Sculptures representing the material in a neutral, balanced way, appropriate for an encyclopedia?
 * Thanks for your attention.

We surely do not want the article to be deleted while the issue is considered by NASA. Let us take a deep breath, and see what they have to say.azeltsman2 20:55, 12 May 2006 (EST)


 * No, let's take a deep breath and assume that NASA will treat your request as I suggested above, like a planetologist would treat a debate on whether the moon is really made of green cheese, or like a doctor would the proposition that cancer is cured by the laying on of hands and tumors are removed from your abdomen via a false finger filled with chicken guts.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then...chicken guts don't work??? Crushed! - Nunh-huh 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think postponing deletion for a few days isn't really going to hurt anyone - and after all, AFAIK, the 5 days is just a minimum time before deletion. LjL 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Stuff like the Face on Mars at least had real research efforts and community discussions; this is some WP:CRANK effort. NOR and all that.  Just get rid of it.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:00, 14 May 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.