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; possible merge to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations -- please work out whether to merge and if so, how, on Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:07Z

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable subject, silly given the stipulation of using "independent" evidence, and original research. Lunokhod 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puttin this article up for deletion for numerous reasons.

• It is non-notable (see Wikipedia's definition of notability here). A quick internet search shows that all the topics related to this subject are about the "Apollo Moon landing hoax". The act of refuting these claims by using "Independent evidence for human and non-human Moon landings (that is, evidence not presented by NASA or its subcontractors)" is not one of the common ways to refute these hoax claims. Such arguments, if they exist, could easily be incorporated into a pre-existing article under the domain of wikipedia. Such evidence would probably be no more than 1 paragraph long, and would not be an undue burden on, say, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations.
• By "Apollo Moon landings" any reasonable person would infer that this refers to the Apollo program to put humans on the Moon, and not the possibility that Apollo might have landed on the Moon, but with no people inside the LEM. As the article states, the only proof that can be used to definitively show that humans walked on the Moon is to take pictures of "boot prints" from orbit (but only if these come from an non-US governmental agency spacecraft!). However, it is quite clear that such evidence does not exist now, nor will it for a long period of time. Thus, there is no possible proof that humans walked on the Moon (given the constraints of this article).
• I know of no reputable publications that are primarily concerned with "Independent evidence for human and non-human Moon landings (that is, evidence not presented by NASA or its subcontractors)" Any attempt to make an article based on primary sources that are only tangentially related to this theme would constitute original research. In the words of Wikipedia policy, original research includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."'
• As has already become clear from the talk page, the definition of "independent" is sufficiently vague that almost anything, or nothing, could be placed under this article. For instance, would the results of a European scientist who analyzes "Moon rocks" supplied by NASA be considered independent? Would evidence from ESA be independent, even though they collaborate with NASA and rely on NASA to participate in the ISS?
• Any independent evidence that might exist could easily be refuted by a skeptic. For instance, let's say that telemetry data was collected at an Australian station. How do we prove that this telemetry stream came from the Moon, and not from "over the hill", or from a tape recored souce that was plugged into this instrument?
• Finally, this article is trying to make a point (see WP:POINT), and the intended audience is not going to believe it!

Lunokhod 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bad faith nomination by a POV warrior who has tried systematically to disrupt the page. Evidence for the Moon landings is non-notable? I've never heard anything so stupid. Dividing up evidence from NASA and from others is useful, especially given the quantities involved. This article was started from a series of repeated discussions on the Apollo Hoax page, but is also a stand alone article not linked directly to the hoax accusations. A list of observations, tracking, testimonies etc that confirm the landings is appropriate and useful. Not one bit is original research. It is ALL well sourced, and published to death elsewhere. Gravitor 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Assuming the information in this article is true. The Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations are certainly a noteworthy concept worthy of an article, and a rebuttal of them seems natural to me. In fact, the nomination seems to want a merge anyway. So I suggest going that route. FrozenPurpleCube 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would not be too bad, except that the evidence for it does not presume a hoax accusation. Listing the evidence is a useful tool for anyone, not just hoax enquirers. Also, that page is already tagged as being "too long" and in the process of being split into sub-articles. Gravitor 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't mind if the merger is elsewhere, that's not a sticking point in my book. FrozenPurpleCube 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could merge it into Project Apollo? Gravitor 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. That's a more natural location for this, 23skidoo 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's nothing about the hoax in this article, and the hoax article is already too long. Gravitor 01:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is actually an omission because, otherwise, there really is no need for the article since all you need is to cite the New York Times or whatever's coverage of the applicable manned moon landings. The only reason why people feel the need to cite evidence is because of people citing evidence to the contrary, so this topic is better served as part of the hoax article. I'm actually tempted to change my vote to delete as unnecessary, however, I'm content to leave my vote as is having looked at the article again as requested. Reconfirm merge. 23skidoo 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. My interpretation of WP:NPOV does not provide for making separate articles for cited POV's. If the information is notable, then it should be cited and reside right next to the contrary position's notable and cited content. By making separate articles each catering to a particular POV, you may avoid conflict between editors, but you do the reader a disservice. Some readers are likley to read just the one article, which devoid of a balanced NPOV, is unfair. If the article is too long, then consider trimming out the fat... if there is no fat to trim, then maybe it is ok to be long... or maybe the article needs to be split up, but not based on the POV of the content. Jerry lavoie 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article catering to a point of view, it is a list of evidence. Carfiend 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disgree. If you want to neutral article, you should call it "Evidence for Apollo Moon Landings." Within such an article you could give the official NASA story, as well as the "independent" evidence. The two types of evidence could be clearly separated, and it could be mentioned that some people do not believe the official evidence because of conspiracy theory reasons. If such an article were to grow so large that it needed to be split in two, so be it. As is clear from the present state of this article, though, this will probably never happen. Lunokhod 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominated. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge (if there's anything salvageable) to the hoax accusations page as apparent POV fork Bwithh 04:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then redirect Mathmo ^Talk 10:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC). Keep. Changed my mind, but there needs to a a link in each direction pointing to the other article. So I'll add that in under a See Also section. Mathmo ^Talk 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone saying 'merge', for one thing, the Hoax accusation page is flagged as 'too long', and the consensus is to create sub articles. In addition, this is NOT a sub article of the hoax page - it has nothing to do with the hoax. It's odd to suggest that only hoax advocates are interested in evidence for the Moon landings. Gravitor 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there is nothing to merge, so I don't think that there is need to worry about the hoax page becoming too long. A merge would end in having a redirect to the hoax page, whereas a delete would not. Lunokhod 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, since you want to suppress factual, verified information. You are also convinced that the only reason someone would want factual information about Apollo is if they are hoax proponents. This article is not about the hoax, it is about evidence. If anything, it should be merged into Project Apollo. Both of those pages are too long already though, and there is consensus to split them into sub-articles. Gravitor 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a factual, neutral article of interest to anyone interested in the Apollo program - it is not a hoax article and should not be merged. I am disturbed that people seem to think the only people interested in evidence for Apollo are hoax enthusiasts - Apollo enthusiasts too, are interested in this - that's where most of the well cited evidence on that page comes from! Carfiend 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge (Apollo moon hoax and Apollo program page) This isn't a separate topic. This is a a spur of the apollo moon hoax article began as a way to 'prove' some point about independent evidence of the moon landings. This birth is documented in the moon hoax articles archive. see WP:point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 February 2007

Of course it's separate. Just like the facts of JFK's murder are separate from the suspicion of foul play. Gravitor 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right facts belong in the apollo program article and suspicions in the moon hoax article. The inclusion of sweeeping factiods like this (essentially the first statement in the artiticle)prove it:No independent evidence of human landing currently exists - see future plans for missions that might, in the future, provide this. The purpose of the article is obvious. It's a spur of the hoax articles. Numskll 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has information that a reader may be interested in, which is its purpose on Wikipedia. Branson03 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a very interesting subject about no easy findable information .- Jor70 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork and some original research. Anything verfiable can be added to the main Apollo Hoax page. Teiresias84 12:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. However note that I don't think that this is POV since the Apollo Moon landings are facts. You can't call POV an article which explains that hoax theories are plain lies. And please do a real merge, sometimes I have the impression that the information of one of both articles evaporates in the process. Hektor 12:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my impression that this material originated from the hoax page itself. In fact, part of the motivation for creating this topic in the first place was to shorten the Hoax page. I have not followed every edit and discussion on that page, so please correct me if I am wrong. Lunokhod 13:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled by the idea that the only people interested in facts about Apollo are the hoax proponents. If you want a merge, it should be merged with Project Apollo. There is nothing on the evidence page that talks about a hoax. Also, would those proposing a merge like to remove the too long tag? Gravitor 15:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us some reputable references showing that this topic meets wikipedia's notability criteria? Perhaps you are right, in which case I would happily withdraw my AfD nomination. Lunokhod 17:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honeysuckle Creek - "An independent recording of the Lunar Landing" [1],

Bill Keel - [2] "In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, one point of documenting these observations is to demonstrate independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, that large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft were seen en route to and from the Moon."

Pine Mountain observatory at the University of Oregon has pages devoted to independent tracking of Apollo [3]. Gravitor 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these are just web sites and are not peer-reviewed. I am not debating as to whether there is independent evidence or not. The question is to whether this subject matter is (among others) notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. Lunokhod 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There. You've demonstrated your bad faith. Since when is the only evidence in determining whether a subject is suitable peer review? Never. These are credible, non-hoax sites that are concerned with independent evidence of the moon landings. That's what you asked for - now follow through, or be exposed for the POV-warrior you are. Gravitor 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at wikipedia's policy as to what constitutes a reliable source? Lunokhod 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think Honeysuckle Creek observatory is a reliable source? University of Alabama astronomy dept? I think you're grasping at straws. Gravitor 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your ridiculous crusade. This page is already too long to merge into any other page, and is filled with well sourced, reliable, factual information. Gravitor 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconfirm prior delete or merge salvageable info !vote I was asked to reconsider the article in the light of further revisions. In my opinion, it still seems to be a POV fork. We shouldn't have competing separate "For" and "Against" articles on the same subject unless there are severe practical space issues (I don't see that here - the use of space and formatting could be far more economical especially with the pruning of unnecessary information). Furthermore even in the same one article the case for each side should be summarized but the article should not be turned into an evidence collection space for each side's cases. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Bwithh 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a POV fork, any more than Project Apollo is. It is a list of undisputed evidence, there are no POVs in it. Gravitor 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then start a NPOV page called Evidence for Apollo Moon landings, as I have suggested to you several times already. While such a new entry would not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and might be nominated for AfD, it would not suffer from the other points raised in my AfD nomination that you have so far failed to address despite your large number of posts to this debate. The title of the current page implies that NASA's evidence, as well as that of the thousands of people that were implicated in Apollo or the analysis of data afterwards, are not reliable for some unknown reason that is apparently not related to the Moon landing hoax. Lunokhod 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunokhod, please consider keeping your word as above. Your blatant bad faith is not helpful. Gravitor 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is merged, the only suitable page is Project Apollo. This evidence has no direct relevance to the hoax. Gravitor 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconfirm prior delete or merge salvageable info !vote I was also asked to reconsider the article in the light of further revisions. I want to reiterate that I do not have a problem with the content or context or notability of the article in question. What I do have a problem with is segregating it from the hoax article. Maybe this AfD would have been more tolerable to more people if the other article was nominated for deletion and we all voted to merge it's contents here... I dunno. But I am reconfirming my !vote to merge these two articles, under any name the merging admin chooses. Jerry lavoie 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. --Christofurio 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FACTUAL article for people interested in how various 3rd parties verified or failed to verify the moon landings.24.7.34.99 03:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Compilation and dissemination of 3rd party evidence is of interest to anyone making a serious study of this issue. Petersoncello 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant information to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. It seems to me that much of the info here is indeed notable/valuable but that anyone looking for this stuff is most to go to the Apollo Hoax page, therefore that seems the best place for it. --Nebular110 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations or Apollo Moon Landing bono8106

bono8106 has only made one edit to wikipedia. This account is probably a sock puppet. Lunokhod 10:43, 11 February 2007 (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.