Talk:Underground Astronauts

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South Africa Low‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Caves

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves articles

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology: Women in archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women in archaeology task force.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Anyone, nominate this article for deletion

Ãnyone should nominate this article for deletion. The phrase/name is not notable, although used by media perhaps more than once. (Later one can deal with the issue of university students who each have their article on Wikipedia.) @Bledwith:. Signed, another 30-meter-underground-"astronaut", 89.8.158.26 (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2019 there was a half-hearted attempt at having the articled merged (and thereby deleted). However there was no claim that the phrase/name is not notable. When nominating the article for deletion again, there needs to be a justification or rationale, for deletion: Example, "non-notable name/phrase".
I support having the article deleted - the name/phrase does not seem notable, even though media has used the name/phrase at least once. 89.8.158.26 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Evolution of the Genus Homo

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2022 and 3 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cornyon (article contribs).

"Controversy"

Regarding the final sentence of this section; does the fact Berger released the findings as open access really add to the controversy? Surely, this particular move has not been criticised or deemed controversial. 2A02:C7C:5690:A000:6DA0:3C03:1043:2CB (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am wrong about that then it needs to be explained in the paragraph. 2A02:C7C:5690:A000:6DA0:3C03:1043:2CB (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]