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 and redirect to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations as a POV fork. Problems with that article shouldn't be dealt with by starting another similar article. (aeropagitica) 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Hoax Theory[edit]

Identical to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations except that anything critical to the hoax accusations has been removed. Algr 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user apparently created this page to avoid reaching a consensus on Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. See his contributions on the talk pages of the two articles for his statements in this regard. Numskll 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His new additions are pure fantasy. He suggests taking a multi-second film exposure in broad daylight as a way to photograph stars and the landscape at the same time. Algr

• Strong Delete, blatant POV fork per Algr My Alt Account 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, per Algr and per nom. wikipediatrix 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, obvious POV fork. The Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations article is a mess, but it should be fixed there, not forked. Mark Grant 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect as per Mark Grant's comment. -- ArglebargleIV 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (changed to add redirect) -- ArglebargleIV 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete WolfKeeper 02:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, extremely POV -th1rt3en 03:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV fork. Bubba73 (talk), 03:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mark Grant. Michael Kinyon 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply junk.--MONGO 09:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User who posted it looks to be trying to "prove a point", which is against wikipedia policy; POV slant is evident in talk page, saying Hoax accusations page is "heavily monitored by NASA officials". Wahkeenah 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations as legitimate search term. MLA 11:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely unjustifiable POV fork. Content dispute and allegiations of "monitoring" is not an excuse. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or redirect per User:MLA ~CS 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, and don't throw Broodlinger's edits away from the latter without previous analysis. Some (despite few) of his edits are quite resonable. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting would be fine. After it gets deleted. Wahkeenah 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means, please define which edits, specifically, are worth keeping, so they could possibly be inserted into the "real" article. Wahkeenah 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant edits in the main article that were reverted before he created this fork. Some of them were impoving wording. I mean, just don't throw his opinion of consideration, and there will be much more pace. Criticizm helps in making article more neutral and therefore shouldn't be discarded w/o even reading. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to list them specifically. Wahkeenah 11:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand why would I need it :-), but anyway, there's the change containing several good edits, like that moon landing was too risky and that NASA spent about 30 G$ on the program (BTW, Russians spent about 6 G$). Yes, you're right - I suppose you are somewhat guilt in that Broodlinger created this fork. If you had conducted better, he wouldn't create it. People, hear to each other, and there will be a pace! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Way too much information to deal with. Once this forked article gets knifed, you could work on improving the real article, if you're of a mind to. However, if you look at the way Broodlinger immediately came in as an attack dog, it was he who violated the rules of conduct, not us... as do most of the hoax writers (many of whom appear to be sockpuppets of each other and/or singularly obsessed with that one article). Wahkeenah 12:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I agree, hoax writers are not attractive :-). Ok, sorry, I didn't wish to hurt you. I just wish to say, that more accurate dealing with these hoax writers may be more effective than blind deletion. As for the article itself, I don't mind too much about the subject (I suppose it's more useful to spend time on more productive articles about moon landings), but maybe I will look at this article too. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was risky, but obviously it wasn't too risky. So what if the USSR spent only $6 billion on their moon program? They didn't get there. Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing (except that with these 6 G$ Russians were close to make a moon landing, and therefore Russian space engineers don't doubt that 30 G$ were quite enough for NASA to make a successfull moon landing). Just a fact that I simply mentioned. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that if the Russians had any hint that there was a question about the truth of the Apollo program, they might have said something at some point. Wahkeenah 09:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. If this page becomes part of mainstream Wikipedia, this will be under scrutiny just the same as the main page. This page is purposeless to all but those who, in fact, believe that we did not go to the moon at all. In addition, pages full of speculation aren't very helpful to someone who goes to this site believing that all included information is factual, and needs no further investigation. Edman 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this isn't the only article like that. Bubba73 (talk), 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if that's the case, then let's do something about it before it goes outside our scope of control.Edman 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I looked at it, the article Green Fireballs was an example of that. But I gave up on making the article factual many months ago, so I haven't checked it lately. Bubba73 (talk), 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is not another article whose truth cannot be verified, it's this one. While the article you mentioned has all of the criteria for inclusion, this one doesn't. That's why there is this discussion on whether it should be in or not. Edman 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not proposing that the green fireball article be deleted, if that is what you mean. Bubba73 (talk), 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. One article per topic is not rocket surgery. FunnyYetTasty 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I read Broodlinger`s explanation for this page in the discussion page under "Starting fresh". Makes sense. Wikipedia should have an article about what Moon Hoax Theory is, the different theories, period. For instance there were no crater under the lunar lander and no dust on the landing pads. We do not need a long (and unconvincing if I may say so) explanation on why there should be none in this article. Response to the hoax theory could be done in a separate article, for instance by changing the name of the original "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" to "Rebuttal of Moon Hoax Theory". Trying to get consensus on the original "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" is not working very well. I am not even trying after seeing how other believers in the hoax are treated. It is like trying to paint a picture, with some trolls laying it on the floor, jumping on it with dirty boots, and giving it back. No, think this page is a better try for Wikipedia. Axlalta 11:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above poster is a Sock Puppet. View history: [1] What makes you qualified to decide what is convincing? Have you ever even seen a helicopter land on sand? Lots of people have, but the claim that there ought to be a crater does not come from them. I would support posting an actual 'hoax theory', but no one has ever come up with one. No hoaxer ever actually states what he thinks DID happen. Algr 16:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are almost certainly correct, and you beat me to it. Although that user has been around since April, as with some of the other hoaxsters his only "contributions" have been complaints about the Apollo hoax accusations article. Wahkeenah 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reply of Algr and Wahkeenah illustrate my point in an excellent way. Groundless and rude accusations of me beeing a sockpuppet. Far out reasoning (helicopter??). "There are no hoax theory". Hey Algr, the hoax theory says that pictures of astronauts allegedly on the moon was taken in a studio setting on earth. Anyone expect me to use my free time to achive consensus with rude people you can`t reason with? No, the hoax believers and the Apollo fans just don't get along to well. Apollo fans are in clear majority, and they are making the article of what the hoax theory is about. Their target is not to describe the hoax theory to readers, their target seems to be to discredit the hoax theory. And Wikipedia get an awful article on the subjeckt. No, hoax beliver are better suited to describe the hoax theory, Apollo fans are better suited at criticizing it. There could be a page for both, as described in my comments above. Axlalta 10:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your only "contributions" to wikipedia in your 5 or 6 months have to do with this page, so it is reasonable to conclude that you're a sockpuppet. And it is the hoaxsters who are the rude ones, as they refuse to discuss anything. They constantly rail about the article being "biased", when their real agenda is to present a biased page, giving only their "side" of the story. Or several sides. "The" hoax theory is an incorrect characterization. First, because there are several, not just one; and second, because their only "theory" is their suspicions, because they have no actual evidence, just questions, which can easily be knocked down by explanations that are consistent with science and technology, and within the context of the historical record of Mercury-Gemini-Apollo. That by itself doesn't prove Apollo is true, but it introduces reasonable doubt into the hoaxsters' arguments. The article does, in fact, try to explain what the hoax "theories" are. It does present the claim of some (but not all) hoaxsters that the landing stuff was done in studios on earth despite the lack of any evidence of that claim. If anything, the article gives too much credence to the hoaxster side. The hoaxsters complain about the article, but every suggestion to "improve" it boils down to presenting a one-sided view. Wahkeenah 10:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of an article about the hoax theory is to describe it, not judge it. The "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" article has lots of arguments against the hoax which may be "original research or unverified claims", something to avoid. If a telescope could show detaljed pictures of the alleged landing sites, that would be dependable and verifiable arguments for the article. But let us avoid "original research or unverified claims", with links to strange hoax-rebuttal internet sites. Axlalta 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried multiple times to convert it into an article which describes the hoax theories in accordance with the NPOV policies (particularly without giving the hoaxers opinions undue weight and in a similar manner other pseudoscience articles). When we do so, the Apollo-deniers revert it back to the current mess. In any case, this isn't the place to discuss the problems with the "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" article, they have no bearing on a blatant PoV fork. Mark Grant 14:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Axlalta, whose lack of righteous indignation lends further credence to his being a sockpuppet, also must think we were born yesterday. It is very difficult to fully "describe the hoax" without bringing up the questions the hoaxsters raise. But user Mark Grant is right, that discussion belongs on the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations page. Wahkeenah 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. per everybody--Peephole 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - attempt to make an end run around Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. Ergative rlt 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then redirect to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. Voortle 12:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork. --Guinnog 09:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And chaps, befor you start all the sock puppet crap, kindly do present at least some sort of evidence.--Pussy Galore 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see from your page that you're sensitive to this issue, understandably so. Several of these user ID's have written only about this subject despite being on here for months. Their phraseology, as well as their approach (making edits without discussion and then turning around and accusing us of same, and generally "stirring the pot" and name-calling, and then whining when the tables are turned) are similar. And their curious lack of righteous indignation when the sockpuppetry subject comes up does nothing to counter the suspicions. Mind you, I'm not accusing, I'm just raising questions, based on the telltale signs pointed out in the wiki guidelines. Wahkeenah 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who are 'us'? OMG! Are you one of .... The CABAL??? --Pussy Galore 01:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, I'm Larry, the Cabal guy. Git 'er done! Wahkeenah 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, bad fork. RFerreira 05:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork.--Peta 05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.