Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Obelisks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moon Obelisks

Moon Obelisks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Basically just a conspiracy theory with no indication of notability or reliable sources Makerowner 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No evidence this theory is discussed in detail by anyone but nuts. Someguy1221 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. --EMS | Talk 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks reliable independent sources. Edison 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete woof woof! (I like the use of the word "alleged", makes it more scientific somehow). andy 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. complete balls, not even a good conspiracy theory. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Drivel. If alien artifacts had been found on the moon why weren't the Americans (and Russians) immediately launching a dozen expeditions to examine them? Nick mallory 01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are you honestly asking that question, Nick? You know the government would never tell us about their communication with aliens on their supersecret lunar obelisk bases. It is our mission as Wikipedia to publish these completely unreferenced theories so the public can be properly informed. Someguy1221 05:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course I could be a government stooge working on behalf of the alien conspiracy to make sure their secret is not exposed to the public gaze. In that case I'd be revealing my true identity here to hide in plain sight as a cunning double bluff...or something. Nick mallory 06:28, 25 May 2007 (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.