You should not have deleted the Area 58 page in my opinion.  I modified the article from the rather nutty article posted by the original poster to reflect the ambiguities surrounding the site's existence, and to remove the biased PoV of the original article.  The article was backed up by a substantial array of links to third party sources that were not self-referential in any way.  It is my opinion that the popular culture interest of this subject matter warrants its inclusion, in the same way that we have an article regarding Area 51, and other US government sites that are alleged to exist.  If the text of the previously deleted user was unacceptable, what text would be considered acceptable?  How can this decision be appealed, so that a proper consensus can be reached on how this important and encyclopedic subject matter can be referenced?   Would you be open to another article containing a list and description of all alleged US government installations of reduced interest?    Wgw2024  