Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of ancient astronauts

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. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of ancient astronauts

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

Original research extravaganza which I gather was controversial even when it was part of ancient astronauts. Title is wildly misleading about the actual content. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Edison (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Pure OR, and hilariously incompetent OR at that. WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply. Agree that topic title is misleading. Clearly not acceptable for inclusion in the main article, never mind as a stand-alone list. There's simply nothing of any encyclopedic value here, and there is no hope that the article can be rewritten to conform to WP standards. The sock duck is quacking pretty loud, too. Most likely candidate is the now-blocked user that originally created the list: [[1]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Note that it's supposed to be a timeline of ancient astronauts yet most of the entries are for the twentieth century. Since they're fictional events I don't see any usefulness of the article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ai yi yi...where do I start? WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR....aaaand the fact this is not even a timeline of ancient astronauts. It's a timeline of books about ancient astronauts. (and if the creator, User:Alienspaceships, is in fact the IP Dominus mentioned, which was checkuserblocked with an apparent connection to User:Anglo Pyramidologist, this should be G5able). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about the above attacks Just to say: The timeline of publications has been on the ancient astronaut main article for well over 3 years, it has been left there, now if I did not create this other article nothing would be done about it, it would of remained on the main article of ancient astronauts, yes it would of remained there forever, I see nobody calling it all these names when it has been there for well over 3 years. A user called Dougweller on the talkpage claimed that the list was too big and should be put to bottom of the article. I happened to check it out the other day and decided to create a new article for it, becuase it seems silly to be on the bottom of the article. The list is not original research. It is a timeline of every book which deals with ancient astronauts. This is no different than the Intelligent Design Timeline which is on wikipedia. As for me being another user, this is impossible, I have only just joined wikipedia, you obviously did not like the fact that I moved some information to another wikipedia article, then decide to make lies up about me and attack me. very sad indeed, I have an interest in ancient astronauts and was trying to help the article, but it seems this is not aloud on wikipedia. This has not been a nice experience, so I will not be posting on this website, thanks. Alienspaceships (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to be unattributed intrawiki copying from Ancient astronaut, think that also meets speedy criteria?. Polyamorph (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a useless list. This isn't a "timeline of ancient astronauts", it's a timeline of publication of books that happen to mention "ancient astronauts". JIP | Talk 14:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Griswaldo (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is as the creator says a copy from Ancient astronaut, so either it needs deleting from there or from here. It actually sits well in the original article so seems no need to move it out here. The original article covers some clearly odd ideas in a careful and encyclopedic way, no need to attack it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalavageable, and content should not be returned to the main article as it would be equally against policy there. DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Key sources to Further Reading at Ancient astronaut. This is essentially an original essay about a fringe theory as it sits. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Redundant with the publication list on Ancient astronaut. In the unlikely event that this is retained, it really should be renamed. Perhaps Publications about ancient astronauts. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Closing admins should ignore comments about "this is not a list of ancient astronauts" - that's a rationale for renaming, not deletion. That said, delete. The list is an incomplete and apparently OR list of publications - I'm sure a scholarly list can be developed for publications about ancient astronauts and ancient astronaut theories (either real-world or fictitious), but this isn't that list. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Dr. Who? Lovecraft? This list appears to be conflating fact and fiction in order to prove a point... this is an indiscriminate list of publications that really needs to be gone. eldamorie (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2011 (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.