Deletion of Examination of Apollo Moon photographs

Comment: This article is unequivocally includable on WP according to . Conspiracy theories about Apollo are mentioned specifically in the #Examples|list of examples of fringe theories that show what kind of articles should be included on WP because of their notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: It is an interesting article that discusses something than many people are interested in. I personally beleive that the Americans did go to the moon, but if it was so cut and dried then this conspiricy theory would have gone away a long time ago. As for the |notoriety issues, I've seen many TV programmes on this topic. I think it's a fun, interesting, and well produced article. There's noting wrong with healthy scepticism. Once upon a time people were labed "crackpots" for not believing that Jesus was the son of God, because it was obviously true that he was! I guess that some people have suggested we delete this article because it offends them. Well I say lighten up. It's a good article that raises many good points and has lots of photographic evidence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (Wikipedia:Notability)

Comment: Needless  of  theories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: per Algr and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: I don't agree with the nom's rational... but I do agree that this article should be deleted.  The article is a spin off from Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories.  The topic of ''that'' article is definitely notable.  It's fringe... but it is notable fringe (in fact it is used as an example of how a fringe theory can be notable in  itself).  As a sub-topic of ''that'' article, the various examinations of the photos taken on the moon (or not taken on the moon, depending on one's POV) has some degree of notability... but I have to question whether the sub-topic merits an article on its own. Is the idea of examining the moon photos notable? (and if so, can that notability established through reference to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the topic, as per GNG?) I would !vote for merger back into the main article, except that there already is a fairly good section on photos and films ''in'' that main article.    Also, ''this'' article has other problems... for one thing it has serious WP:V and WP:RS issues. The majority of the article is either cited to unreliable sources (various on line forums and personal webpages and the like) or not cited at all ... and it is filled with Original research (as it is structured, it is a classic example of an OR magnet, just begging for POV warriors to add their own pet theory or analysis of the moon photos)... The one thing I will say in favor of the article is that it is even handed in its problems... both the conspiracy theorists and the debunkers are trying to prove the "truth" of their claims and counter claims, but both are violating WP:NOR in doing this.  So the one thing it does ''not'' have is POV problems
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)