Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Great Pyramid of Giza: alternative theories

what a joke. What a pointless empty and invalid process. It had already been decided before hand. This was never a discussion or a debate on the merits and problems.

NPOV had nothing to do with this in the end, nor the supply of evidence, which was added as promised during the building stage of the page. Further additions were abandoned; it became very clear there was never going to be a turn around, simply because the people involved were never going to bother to look at the new evidence for the defence after they had stated their views.

In truth, this is no surprise. But it is a shame that those who enjoy their power to delete maybe too much couldn't exercise the wisdom to see how to best progress and ensure neutrality. Instead, we now have a biased encyclopaedia with only one side of the debate, one version of the opinions (stated as though they were fact) regarding the dating etc.

Abandon expectation of neutral judgement, all ye who write articles here. --Genesis 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)