Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stargate Project

Stargate Project

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cant find a single Reliable Source for this thing, a couple of conspiracy books and none seem to be reliable for anything. This could be largest Hoax ever on Wikipedia. Most sources lead back to Joseph McMoneagle so it might be a viable redirect. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piltdown Man is a hoax, but we have an article on it. Even if it is a hoax, it does not make it a deletion target. Since this has coverage from many sources, and is used as the basis of films and TV shows, it seems rather notable. We have UFO articles, afterall. There appears to be quite some mentions about Star Gate's remote viewing in various sources that are not conspiracy sites: [1][2] 65.94.45.209 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding, 65.94; the argument is not that the subject of the article is a hoax, rather that the article itself is a hoax, being a completely non-notable and indeed completely made-up theory; the variety of published (albeit extremely fringe) sources lead me to believe this may not actually be a hoax, but I'm going to do a bit more research before I opine here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article clearly isn't a hoax, it just needs a lot of work to clean it up; it states wild conspiracy theories as fact, but sources like this one reliably suggest that it is true that the U.S. did run a paranormal project, before deciding that it was a waste of money and it was producing results which were 75% nonsense. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course possible that the conspiracy theory itself, about the extraordinary claims of paranormal activity and whatnot, is just a hoax theory, but in that case that material can simply be removed. Most of it should be removed as being clearly WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE anyway, and the article will be left with the facts of what this (somewhat embarrassing, for the U.S. Government) project did entail. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Good Work I was unable to find a source like the Time Magazine one. I hereby withdraw my nomination for deletion since it is confirmed to be some sort of actual program. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]