- 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. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 13:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Reply to the Arecibo message
- Reply to the Arecibo message ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think the question to be answered here is not "is Reply to the Arecibo message a hoax?" but "is Reply to the Arecibo message a notable hoax?" The internet is abuzz with possible replies to Arecibo message, and this is one of them. I have looked into the references given in this article, and they appear to be self-published books with publishers that do not even rate a Wikipedia article. Pete AU Shirt58 ( talk) 10:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I originally speedied this. Blythwood ( talk) 11:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete the references are not authoritative. There is no reason to give self-published material credence where none should exist.-- Rpclod ( talk) 12:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Self-published references. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per above Eddie891 Talk Work 16:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Per above, self-published references, no evidence this is even a notable hoax. Also, the entire article clearly fails WP:NPOV. Leaving the article intact (presenting event as actual alien contact based solely on self-published refs) gives WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE theory. Without prominent reliable sources to improve it, deletion is the only reasonable option. Shelbystripes ( talk) 16:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Rpclod, no need to provide publicity to self-published hoaxers. Tarl N. ( discuss) 02:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jerrykroth-391 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:224E:3400:65C8:C4A4:45C9:EB78 ( talk) 07:45, 8 January 2018 (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.
- 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. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 13:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Reply to the Arecibo message
- Reply to the Arecibo message ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think the question to be answered here is not "is Reply to the Arecibo message a hoax?" but "is Reply to the Arecibo message a notable hoax?" The internet is abuzz with possible replies to Arecibo message, and this is one of them. I have looked into the references given in this article, and they appear to be self-published books with publishers that do not even rate a Wikipedia article. Pete AU Shirt58 ( talk) 10:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I originally speedied this. Blythwood ( talk) 11:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete the references are not authoritative. There is no reason to give self-published material credence where none should exist.-- Rpclod ( talk) 12:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Self-published references. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per above Eddie891 Talk Work 16:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Per above, self-published references, no evidence this is even a notable hoax. Also, the entire article clearly fails WP:NPOV. Leaving the article intact (presenting event as actual alien contact based solely on self-published refs) gives WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE theory. Without prominent reliable sources to improve it, deletion is the only reasonable option. Shelbystripes ( talk) 16:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Rpclod, no need to provide publicity to self-published hoaxers. Tarl N. ( discuss) 02:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jerrykroth-391 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:224E:3400:65C8:C4A4:45C9:EB78 ( talk) 07:45, 8 January 2018 (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.