Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exoarcheology

Exoarcheology

Idiosyncratic neologism, original research. From same author as Exopolitics. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: It would be xenoarcheology, if there were ancient civilizations on planets and if we had gone to those planets and if we had people to do it and if there were a chance of understanding it. Since none of those "ifs" are met, there shouldn't be an article on the proper term. Geogre 17:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• KeepThe very credibility of the Wikipedia process of knowledge gatekeeping is now at stake if Exoarchaeology is deleted, as it is an ESTABLISHED UNIVERSITY-LEVEL FIELD OF STUDY FOR YEARS! Please read the definition and note that the articles there are from established Uniersity Departments discussing the very subject of exoarchaeology. If Exoarchaeology is and has been for years an established field in the University world, and it is now subject to a Wikipedia deletion process, then this process has fundamental flaws, and is subject to attack by malicious actors, unerinformed and misinformed and biased minds. Look at the simple article on Exoarchaeology provided in the defintion.
  • Cut a whole shload of ensuing cut-and-pasted POV source material by above sockpuppet (User:Exopolitics). This may or may have not been against the rules, I don't know, but it didn't belong here. See the history. - KeithTyler 19:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • ...the articles there are from established Uniersity (sic) Departments... Exoacademics? Uniersity, indeed. Kook U, perhaps? --Viriditas 13:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete on the grounds that the above user is a crank. RickK 19:49, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Althought it could be expanded with xenoarcheology in fiction, I don't think even that would make it a wikipedia article. It can be remade when alien artefacts are found :) Darksun 19:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep All one has to do is study the research of Richard C. Hoagland to realize that exoarcheology is already a real process of study by scientists. Mr. Hoagland is a former museum space science Curator; a former NASA Consultant; and, during the historic Apollo Missions to the Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News. --Pierre2012 21:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet whose first edit was to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Exopolitics . RickK 22:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's possible to find kooks who have worked at NASA, respected universities, or similar. That doesn't make their work respectable. --Improv 22:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• How can it be a real process of study when there are no alien artifacts to study? We already have something on the face on Mars, and its veracity. Delete. Lacrimosus 22:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that the Richard Hoagland cited above is in fact the most prominent proponent of the "aliens built the face on Mars" theory. Zap with heat ray I mean, delete --Rlandmann 00:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Wouldn't exoarcheology mean digging holes under the surface of other planets to discover artifacts of previous now-dead civilizations or communities? Which, uh, we're not doing. - KeithTyler 23:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Oh, and uh, my personal vote is to delete with extreme prejudice, but my real vote (due to my experience with Exopolitics) is to redirect to Exobiology. - KeithTyler 23:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The equation '"Richard Hoagland" + Anything = Delete' is one of Life's Fundamental Principles for me. Quack. Denni☯ 02:49, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
• Delete - Complete fiction. We haven't quite made it to Mars, and are nowhere near sending archeological expeditions to other worlds. Delete it all, and don't even bother to merge or redirect. Oh, by the way dear author, there is no face on Mars: it went away when we took a less fuzzy photo. ClockworkTroll 04:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The claim that exoarchaeology is an established field is patently false. As for Hoagland, there are plenty of people with doctorates in science who go on to believe absolute guff (Newton is a fine example). Average Earthman 08:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Newton only had a Master's degree. If he'd gotten his doctorate, he'd have never invented the Calculus. His publications instead would have been On Professor Macclesleigh's Theory of Matter and the Recent Experiments in the Matterlab. Geogre 12:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, about the "university field" of exoarcheology, the only university source in a link in this article is about whether it would be possible to travel to other planets. All the rest are (gasp) geocities and home pages. Geogre 12:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Likewise, the only thing on the page on Hoagland about life on other planets has to do with the possibility of microbes beneath the surface of Europa's ice. Not archeological by any means, exo- or otherwise. - KeithTyler 18:44, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a shame that the authors of this page did not dig up the scholarly journal articles and books that would have provided the Reference section required for such an important exploration of our history and place in time. :) I am looking, but I don't find them here on this page. So I conclude that this is Pseudoscience. ---Rednblu 17:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 03:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. SWAdair | Talk 08:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Aaargh! Preferably a protected redirect (to stop it coming back- and also for exoarchaeology) to Xenobiology or delete (please!) G Rutter 08:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. My vote has been forced by the feminists, the Reptilians, tin-foil hat wearing exopoliticians and of course, our new furry overlords, the Kzinti. --Viriditas 09:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)