Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starchild skull (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   speedy keep. Without prejudice as to the issue of good/bad-faith, the nomination presents no valid reason for deletion. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Starchild skull
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I think a Deletion is in order, as Wikipedia should give fair and unbaised facts. The page only gives views that could be deemed as Baised Peterpanpirate (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a Deletion is in order, as Wikipedia should give fair and unbaised facts. The page only gives views that could be deemed as Baised Peterpanpirate (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Bad faith nomination GDallimore (Talk) 08:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Bias is not a reason to delete an article, it's a reason to edit and improve it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Editor didn't even complete the AFD process properly... GDallimore (Talk) 22:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a terrible article on a subject I couldn't care less about. The article seems to cover all the bases. While I don't think every weird thing that has a book written about it needs an article, over the years this one has been investigated pretty well, and the article reflects that. Greglocock (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, as has been said, bias is not a reason to delete an article. --  stillnotelf   is invisible  19:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 October 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.