Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• Comment It was intended to be Wikipedia:Summary style. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't agree with the nom's rational... but I do agree that this article should be deleted. The article is a spin off from
  WP:FRINGE itself). As a sub-topic of that article, the various examinations of the photos taken on the moon (or not taken on the moon, depending on one's POV) has some degree of notability... but I have to question whether the sub-topic merits an article on its own. Is the idea of examining the moon photos notable? (and if so, can that notability established through reference to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the topic, as per GNG?) I would !vote for merger back into the main article, except that there already is a fairly good section on photos and films in that main article. Also, this article has other problems... for one thing it has serious WP:V and WP:RS issues. The majority of the article is either cited to unreliable sources (various on line forums and personal webpages and the like) or not cited at all ... and it is filled with Original research (as it is structured, it is a classic example of an OR magnet, just begging for POV warriors to add their own pet theory or analysis of the moon photos)... The one thing I will say in favor of the article is that it is even handed in its problems... both the conspiracy theorists and the debunkers are trying to prove the "truth" of their claims and counter claims, but both are violating WP:NOR in doing this. So the one thing it does not have is POV problems. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: This exists because the physical space used up by the photos was creating problems in the original article and giving us "article too long" warnings. Each claim is based on some technical minuta about photography so shorter summeries of the issue can't usefully explain anything and tend to come out looking like one person's opinion vrs another's, thus creating an undue weight problem. Algr (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... but that is exaclty the problem... all this technical minutia about photography and using photographs as sources is where the WP:V and WP:NOR violations occur. It sounds like this was an attempt to avoid violating one policy that ended up violating several others. All our policies have to be followed. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... What you are calling "OR" is just basic info about how photography works regardless of if the camera happened to be on the moon or not. So the ref in this case needn't actually refer to the moon. Is this right? Algr (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can be OR... WP:SYNT discusses the problem of forming an argument from disperate sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with most of what
  Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories article already covers the information presented in this article. I fail to understand why anyone will think the article is encyclopedic material. Note: I fully disclose that I am going throughout a very bad and depressing exclusionism phase. I cannot read a single article without wanting to cull half of its content.--LexCorp (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge with
  Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, maybe some information here would be useful there.--camr ^nag 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per buleboar Dbrodbeck (talk)
• Keep, per Algr. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article gives valueable analysis and information. The photographs are often used as "evidence" by either sides on the debate of the hoax and is therefore notable of some deeper analysis than available on just the conspiracy page.--Junsun (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Blueboar, if there are reliable sources for any of it, merge what's left into the conspiracy theory page. Auntie E. 04:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment... Almost the entire article is stuff that was originally in the main article, so all the missing sources are there. You'd end up putting this entire page in the middle of that page. (I'd reconect the sources myself, but I'm iPod only for now and just typing here is tough. In a week or two I'll be able to do it. Perhaps it would be better if the summeries on that page were trimmed down. Algr (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply... I think the summaries on main page cover the ground well, so I would not trim them down... the problems stem from trying to expand on them and provide the details. This is why I think deletion is better than merger. If we merge, and "end up putting this entire page in the middle of that page" all we would be doing is transferring the problems to another article. We might fix some of the WP:V problem of statements being completely unsourced (by reconnecting them to the source provided in the main article), but we would not fix the rampant WP:RS and WP:OR issues. We would still have the WP:RS problem of using unreliable sources such as forum postings and personal webpages to support claims and counter-claims, and we would still have the WP:OR problem of using primary source materials to make arguments not made in those sources (and continued attempts to "prove" theories and debunkings by adding more OR). Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable topic, well written, sourced, NPOV. It's a legitimate and useful sub-article, not a content fork (but I agree that summary paragraphs in main article should be trimmed). No reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability independent of main article is been challenged. Sources are mainly blogs and

WP:SYN even when the sources are taken into account.--LexCorp (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I need to explain my challenge to notability a bit more. Certainly the theory that the Apollo moon landings were a conspiratorial hoax is notable... and the claim that the video and photographs of the landing were faked is certainly a central element to that conspiracy theory. So broadly speaking the idea of examining moon landing photos to try to prove the theory does have some degree of inherited notability. Unfortunately, this article isn't about the idea of examining moon landing photos ... it is about presenting and debunking the details of specific examinations. And that is where I think notability fails... the arguments for and against specific examinations have not reached the attention of the wider world. Discussion is limited to fringe websites and conspiracy theory forums. (Although, admittedly, there are one or two exceptions, such as the "angle of the shadows" claim that was debunked on the Mythbusters TV show). In other words, this article, as written, is discussing things that are not notable.

If this article had been written to discuss the idea rather than the specifics, I don't think we would be having this AFD (although that topic would probably not have been split off from the main article in the first place). But as it is, I think Notability is an issue. It's a complicated issue, and perhaps one that gets into a grey zone... but it is an issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you would discuss the idea of examining photos without getting into some specific details. For instance, there was discussion from conspiracy theorists about the direction of shadows in photographs, but I heard no specifics. Then on the Mythbusters they showed the photo in question. I froze the frame to I could see the photo. Then I looked through the 5,771 photos taken from the Moon until I found that photo. Then I uploaded it to this article so people could see what they are talking about. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are one or two specific claims that can be considered notable because they have been brought to public awairness by the media or on shows like Mythbusters... but those are rare exceptions. Most of these claims are not discussed except by adhearants and opponents of the theory on various conspiracy forums. They are not notable claims.

How do you discuss this without going into details? Simple... You keep the discussion generalized and broad. You mention that conspiracy theorists frequently point to various photos to support their theories, and you perhaps use one or two of the few claims that have entered the public conciousness (such as the one discussed on Mythbusters) as an example... but you stop there. You resist the temptation to try to list every claims, and the proof that is offered to support it (and since you don't mention all this proof, you don't have discuss all the proof that debunks it). Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't list every claim then the hoax proponents say that we are not representing their POV. One woman in Australia says she saw a Coke bottle during the Apollo 11 moonwalk. If that isn't in there, the hoax believers start screaming that it is POV to leave it out. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 19:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we have the

WP:NPOV policy. It is just that fringe theory supporters do not like to follow it understandingly.--LexCorp (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree. And I think we should examine the claims before listing them. Otherwise it is an

indiscriminate collection of info, turning WP to a venue for further promotion of the fringe theory (regardless of its notability). Personally I see no merits for this stand-alone article, so far at least. Brandt 19:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Not every claim should be covered... see

WP:UNDUE. This policy statement does not simply apply to balancing Fringe theory vs. Accepted science, it also applies to individual claims within a theory. The "shadows fall at the wrong Angle" claim can be used as an example because it has been discussed on TV shows like Mythbusters... but the Coke bottle on the moon claim should not be discussed because it has not been brought to the attention of the general public. (as an aside... re the lady who saw the Coke bottle... if she is correct, that isn't evidence that the moon landing was a hoax... it's evidence that the Apollo 11 mission was not actually the first moon landing... obviously someone was on the moon before Apollo 11 since they left a Coke bottle behind... But who? See... thinking up conspiracies can be fun!) Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Notable aspect of the "Moon landing fake" conspiracy theory. Maybe the article needs improvement, but we don't decide whether articles are deleted based on how good the article is; we decide based on how notable the subject matter is. Samboy (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we should also decide whether the conspiracy arguments hold any water. Brandt 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep shouldnt it be called "moon landing fake theory"? or something like that?! I was searching for that and was hard to find this article. thanks. -Pedro (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, just want to make sure... are you voting on the correct article? This AFD concerns

Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

no. it is this one. Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. It's notable, the photograph shadow "thing" was on the news, It was great to find it well covered in wikipedia. Although it deals with these conspirancy theories. Didnt knew about those other articles. --Pedro (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... thanks for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR actually themselves become problematic when applied to fringe theories. Anyone can make up some nonsensical 'flaw' with NASA evidence, and if they can get enough hits to their web page, (or a book published, aka Bart Sibel) then it satisfies all of those WP guides. But a similarly unknown person debunking the 'flaw' might fail WP:RS or WP:OR simply because they aren't making money off of a book deal, or aren't notable for any reason outside the hoax accusation. As a result, the pool of people qualified to respond to a hoax claim is far smaller then those able to make one. Thus satisfying WP:RS automatically violates WP:NPoV. In this case we have to step back and ask which is really a better service to wikipedia readers. Algr (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can not accept the idea that we must ignore one Wikipedia policy in order to adhere to another. No policy "trumps" the others... We must find a way to adhear to all of our policies at the same time. I realize that this can sometimes be difficult, but it must be done. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check

WP:Undue weight be applied. Brandt 06:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Needless
  WP:FRINGE theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Blueboar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Not a content fork, just more detail than was in the main article - standard wikipedia approach. If it's possible to pare it down to where it will fit back in the main article, then it would obviously no longer be needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge via redirect could be fine too, I don't think this is a widely reflected aspect of the moon conspiracy. Brandt 08:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Algr and
  WP:SPLIT. Anarchangel (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I would like to add a couple of things.

  One, many who are adding their comments here, notably Llywrch, seem to be under the misapprehension that the article is a case for the hoax. Every single concise assertion of a hoax is followed by a detailed rebuttal. If anything it should be people who believe it is a hoax here complaining that the article doesn't show their PoV enough. It's sad to see this little attention paid to the article itself by people voting to delete the article.

  Two, this is a perfectly valid spinout of an existing article and I ask the closer to remember

  WP:VOTE and pay close attention to the dittoing of 'hoax' here in its various guises, such as "If there are reliable sources for any of it", merge what's left..." an exact quote from two editors (there are twenty eight references in the article, including the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal). I should point out the difficulties of restarting the article are nothing compared with the task of preserving the photos once they are orphan images; the process of deleting images is much simpler than that to delete articles, is commonly done by a single person, and there are almost as many dedicated to that purpose as there are at AfD. The content can be copy-pasted; once the photos are off of Commons, they're gone. Anarchangel (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

To add to what Anarchangel has to say, the following photos will no longer have links in the article space of Wikipedia should this article be deleted (and if it does get deleted, I will ask for a deletion review): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Samboy (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that an image may be orphaned is a valid reason to keep or delete any article. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, if it were the only reason. Same for

WP:SPLIT). Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, my vote is in agreement with Blueboar, who made a cogent & persuasive argument for deletion. The last two sentences were simply an attempt at a joke. (And if we can't interject a little humor into an AfD discussion, then the discussion is definitely heading for trouble.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Blueboar. If there are reliable sources for any of it, merge what's left into the main page. --hippo43 (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Blueboar. Clearly proof of a conspiracy. (No wait. That's an argument for Keep...) -- llywrch (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Jndrline (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable topic. --Privalov (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per camr Kayau Jane Eyre PRIDE AND PREJUDICE les miserables 03:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Just this morning I had to go to Examination article because the info and photo I was looking for ("C" on the rock issue) was not sufficiently covered in the main article. I then passed the links along to the person (a stranger) who emailed their inquiry to me. 5Q5 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is some really excellent and notable material here and it would be a great shame to loose it - also merging would make the main article much too long. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the material notable? I'm seeing a lot of "I'm facinated by this stuff and am glad to see an article on it" type of comments. But facination is not a criteria for notability. These comments do not address the issues and problems with this article. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - to be fair, I am aslo seeing a lot of "I think this stuff is BS and I don't think should be on Wikipedia" type of comments... but being BS is not a criteria for deletion (notable BS is worth an article)... these comments also do not address the issues and problems with this article. Both types of comments amount to little more than ILIKEIT or IDON'TLIKEIT. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it NOT notable? Rome has offshoots for the same reason, and fewer references. Algr (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with most of what Blueboar and LexCorp said. Askewmind | (Talk) 18:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a few references have been added. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 03:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Once again, a valid spin-off article. Well-researched and well-cited with good formatting and composition. Simply because another website happens to cover the same topic does not mean that Wikipedia cannot, otherwise we would not have a Wikipedia. The article presents common points and valid counter-points and contains extended information on a topic deemed notable. Thus, I cannot find any valid reason to delete it. the_one092001 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just a sample, the visibility of the stars. The stars in

There are no stars in any of the photos

are not visible firstly because it is impossible to render both the objects brightly lit by the Sun and the stars. The Earth light overshines them:

Image:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg Secondly, the speed of the film used for the photos was far too slow to register stars: [8]. It looks like the examiners are not too familiar with physics and astronomy. Some people may naturally believe in what they want to believe, but Wikipedia is not a propaganda venue. Brand[t] 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been demonstrated endlessly that the hoax believers either know nothing about photography, or are deliberately lying about it. Hard to tell whether it's ignorance or malevolence, but either way they get it wrong. The photos are a large part of the hoax believers so-called "evidence", since it grabs more attention than dry discussions about numbers and such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's another reason why this stuff should be deleted, the

original research could be in every section. Brand[t] 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Algr (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)Most of the 30 references are to unreliable sources. This is true for both the claims and the debunking. They are also used to support synthetic statements which violate WP:NOR.

2)It is not our job to provide evidence for either viewpoint... our job is to inform readers what any notable viewpoints viewpoints are.

3)If hoax proponents are adding material supported by unreliable sources and engaging in Original research then they are not following Wikipedia's rules. I propose we point to WP:UNDUE, which clearly says that not every viewpoint can or should be included in Wikipedia... I propose we point them to WP:RS, which discusses what types of sources are allowable or not. I suggest we point them to WP:OR. If hoax proponents are adding material supported by unreliable sources and engaging in Original research then they are not following Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia does not care if someone thinks our policies and guidelines are unfair. It does not care if conspiracy theoriests think we are "suppressing the evidence" (they will probably think this no matter what we do). If their evidence is not discussed in reliable sources, then we shouldn't include it. and if a debunk is not discussed in reliable sources then we should not include that either. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please tell us which sources you find unreliable. Surely not Phill Platt or Clavius. Although I might concede that Fox news is rather shaky. :) Also, what statements are synthetic?

2) Surely verifiable facts are more encyclopedic then someone's viewpoint.

3) The problem with that is that in most contexts no one advocating a hoax could be considered a reliable source. So the very nature of RS has to change to allow the main article to even exist. We do delete accusations that originate here, but an RS review, while warranted, must begin with a consistent definition of what is RS and what isn't.

Algr (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article is unequivocally includable on WP according to
  list of examples of fringe theories
  that show what kind of articles should be included on WP because of their notability:

Please note that we are NOT discussing

Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories... that is a different article and the notability of that topic is not being challenged. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment The fact that this discussion has had over 77 edits by 26 different editors over the last five days shows notability for the topic being discussed. If this article is so non-notable to Blueboar, why does he reply to every comment here supporting the article? Samboy (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is notable about this article is how many Wikipedia Policies it breaks and how many editors seem perfectly OK with ignoring them.
    WP:NRVE) why this article meets WP:notability independently of its parent article.--LexCorp (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It has too much info to merge back in. If you trim the info, you'll help rekindle the edit war that was fought 2-3 years ago. Have fun. I'll watch from the sidelines this time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting than once an article gets to a certain size it cannot be deleted no matter what? Even when most of its content is not sourced with reliable sources and in fact is mostly sourced with
        WP:AGF then it shows that those editor do not known nor bother to look at the WP:notability policy.--LexCorp (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • There is also an
        independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, which debunks this pile of BS. Brand[t] 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • If we go strictly by reliable sources, then the entire body of work here about the alleged hoax would be reduced to a single paragraph. And then the edit war would start all over again. Enjoy! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we don't go strictly by WP:RS... we also go by

WP:FRINGE

(this guideline is the major reason why I disagree with Brand's rational, but agree with the outcome). There are several statements in that guideline that relate to this issue:

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. - The question is whether this article does validate non-signifiant claims by giving them representation that is beyond their prominence. I think it does.

A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. - This is a key concept... for us to consider the claims in this article to be notable, it has to have been discussed by someone notable, or in some notable source. My contention is that this is not the case with the majority of these claims.

I have never been a stickler when it comes to following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (I am a big fan of the essay WP:The rules are principles)... I pay more attention to the intent of our policies and guidelines than the exact language... but when an article violates both the intent and the language of so many of our policies and guidelines there is clearly something wrong. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Baseball Bugs

If we go strictly by reliable sources, then the entire body of work here about the alleged hoax would be reduced to a single paragraph.

Agree and if the deletion is lost (which right now is more than possible) that is what I am going to do if I have time and strength. Challenge every single source and BS statement that does not meet WP.--LexCorp (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles provide what is, in my opinion, a very fair and detailed analysis of the hoax allegations. It lists every one of them that appears to have some interest, and then gives an explanation. It gives lots more info about this than the typical extremist website (one side or the other). If the info can somehow be tightened up to fit into a single article, that would be ideal, but I'm not sure it's possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It lists every one of them that appears to have some interest" - exactly the problem I just outlined... we are not supposed to discuss "every claim that has some interest". Just the notable ones that have been commented upon by reliable sources. "It gives lots more info about this than the typical extremist website (one side or the other)." In other words, we are making them appear more notable than they actually are. If we talk about them more than the people who make the claim, we are discussing them out of proportion to their prominence. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Compliments the existing article, but could be change to a "List of XYZ" type article as well. Worst Case: Merge. Needs cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think a lot of the things can be sourced from one or two books: Dark Moon and One Small Step?. I think they are RS for the statements of the claims. I don't have either of those books, but if the issue is RS, I think that can be provided. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is a valid side article, the main article too long, so some was separated from it. Perhaps the title could be changed though. Conspiracies involved Apollo Moon photographs. Dream Focus 03:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I read this article a couple of years ago (after seeing some TV nonsense) and it was great to find this informative and well organized page with rational explanations for the phenomena reported by the hoax believers. I don't understand some of the reasons for delete given above, but there appear to be three arguments for deletion: (1) it's not notable (or not sufficiently notable to be separate from the main article); (2) it's an undue promotion of fringe nonsense; (3) there is too much original research. I do not agree with any of these arguments. Re (1): regrettably, the issue is notable and searching finds many sources showing interest, and many of them rely on alleged problems with the photographs, for example National Geographic July 2009 and NASA 2001 and ABCNews 2009. Re (2): since the article provides a patient rebuttal of the hoax believers, it is not providing undue promotion of nonsense, although it is unfortunate how it attracts conspiracy theorists who will always be able to add one more "but what about x" sentence. Moreover, many of the technical explanations in the article are interesting. Re (3): yes, the article does not have a citation for every sentence, but I would cut a little slack and note that it does have quite a few sources and can be improved. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, the examples you give show that

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs is notable (two of the articles don't discuss examination of photographs at all, and the one that does only discusses the "there are no stars" claim, and not in any detail. The Undue weight issue centers not on "hoax vs not hoax" but presenting different claims with the same weight... the one or two somewhat notable claims, like the "no stars" claim (which could easily be discussed in the main article) are presented with the same weight as completely non-notable claims. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep It is an interesting article that discusses something than many people are interested in. I personally beleive that the Americans did go to the moon, but if it was so cut and dried then this conspiricy theory would have gone away a long time ago. As for the notoriety issues, I've seen many TV programmes on this topic. I think it's a fun, interesting, and well produced article. There's noting wrong with healthy scepticism. Once upon a time people were labed "crackpots" for not believing that Jesus was the son of God, because it was obviously true that he was! I guess that some people have suggested we delete this article because it offends them. Well I say lighten up. It's a good article that raises many good points and has lots of photographic evidence.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  12:57, 27 July 2009 (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.