Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 25:
Line 25: − +
Conservapedia:AFD Exotheology (view source)
Revision as of 14:49, April 19, 2007
, 14:49, April 19, 2007→Keep
'''Delete'''. This article is shockingly bad, and an example of hte mocking traffic it brings in can be seen in the section below. Great job putting in the front page :-P -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete'''. This article is shockingly bad, and an example of hte mocking traffic it brings in can be seen in the section below. Great job putting in the front page :-P -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
== Keep ==
=== Keep ===
The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)