Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all, if only because a merge to the now-deleted Alan Butler is out and almost nobody here is really persuaded of the notability of all this, but I'll restore the content on request if someone really wants to merge this into some suitable article. Sandstein (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Megalithic geometry

Megalithic geometry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Also nominating:

Salt Lines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sylvain Tristan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

If you come up with some hokum theory, such as that the pharaohs were aliens, or that UFO's are manifestations of time travellers from the future, and write a book about it, you can be sure that there will be some readers who are eager to believe anything sufficiently weird, and quite likely you may get some journals and radio programs devoted to the paranormal and other pseudoscientific stuff to report on it. Such attention by itself does not mean that such theories and there authors have reached the level of notability and importance required for an encyclopedic article. At the very least, this would require an independent, critical treatment published in a reliable source.  --Lambiam 13:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition. The creator of these three articles is the author Sylvain Tristan, creating a clear conflict of interest.  --Lambiam 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think these can be merged to articles about the books: Les Lignes d'Or and The Bronze Age Computer. I don't yet have any opinion whether the authors are notable apart from the books. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Do you have an opinion as to whether these books are notable?  --Lambiam 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  No, I don't know, and could be persuaded either way with adequate evidence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  The Google search term ["Les Lignes d'Or" tristan -wikipedia -achetez] gives 43 hits, and ["The Bronze Age Computer" -wikipedia -buy] 66 hits. In both cases almost all are from book sellers, sites for promoting these books, blogs and forums. In terms of importance this does not amount to much. Evidently the purpose of creating these articles on Wikipedia was to promote these theories by boosting their respectability: if there is a Wikipedia article it must be notable and important.  --Lambiam 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If sensational, gee-whiz fringe theories receive independent coverage in tabloids, radio shows, or TV programs, this establishes their notability for our purposes. This remains true even if one wishes it were otherwise. The article establishes at minimum that a French publisher printed this stuff. It does seem rather scattershot, and ranges from megalithic monuments to the Phaistos disc without really connecting the two, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's more a question of weight. If everyone has just covered a theory in the context of a single book that promotes it, and there aren't other books or reliable publications that cover the theory, it makes sense to cover the theory on WP in the article about the book. This is no different than how we treat fringe theories that people have; sometimes these ideas are covered in individual articles, sometimes in the article about the person, depending on how much other coverage the idea has had. Based on the sources I have seen presented in the articles, it looks like merging the theories into articles about the books is a reasonable way to give them the proper weight. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I've read many of Butler's books and to me it would be a rather mistake to merge Salt Lines and Megalithic geometry, because Salt Lines are ONE of the applications of Megalithic geometry. That is, Megalithic geoemtry is the (presumed) geoemtry using a 366-degree circle. Butler claims this geometry is based on a 366-day calendar. Then LATER Megalithic people or whoever decided to materialize this geometry with so-called Salt Lines (meridians and parallels) and build cities along these lines. Among the other implications of 366-degree geometry, for example, is the assertion that the British (imperial) pints and pounds are derived from the Megalithic yard, the unit of measuremenr used by the Megalithic people (there has been a Wiki article about it for quite a long time now), and the Megalithic Yrad, in 366-degree geoemtry, is a perfect subdivision of the Earth cuircumference. That makes quite a hell of a lot of topics actually!

As a conclusion, rather than merging, it seems to be that it'd be fair to even develop on each of these themes in Wiki. For example, the so-called Megalithic Yard, if hypothetical, has not been discevered by neither Butler or Tristan, but by notorious Scottish professor Alexander Thom. If all this remains hypothetical, Butler's theory seems more than troubling... PS: Can anyone dig up somewhere the "Guardian" (if I remember well) article about "Civilization One" published three years ago?--Mattripley 17:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question. Are you a sock puppet of User:Snicoulaud, apparently Sylvain Nicoulaud who wrote Les Lignes d'Or[1] and published it under the pseudonym "Sylvain Tristan"?  --Lambiam 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to address this here after my warning not to make sockpuppets was ignored.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mattripley and Bobrenner have been blocked. Snicoulaud has been warned. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

At best, let's merge them. This set of theories is not widely accepted in academic archaeology. It seems perfectly possible to explain the archaeological evidence withour resorting to it (Occam's Razor). The whole could be added as a subsection to Pseudoscientific metrology, which already contains some relevant information. It doesn't seem to me that these topics are notable enough to merit more than one separate article. I have been a student and a practitioner of Neolithic archaeology for over a decade, and I have never come across salt lines or the 366 degree idea, not to mention the Phaistos Disk link. The disk is not even a deteable artefact. athinaios 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, a merger/redirect to pseudoscientific metrology might be the best way to deal with this material, even if that article has a few issues at present. (Remember, folks, SI=666). Ideally, the merged text should deal with the substance of the theories, rather than a mere history of the claims made. If the text becomes too long as a subsection there, it can always be forked back into its own article. The entire subject of megalithic geometry would seem to compass the whole history of speculation that ancient monuments were sophisticated calendars and such; not just these two writers. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Are the books notable? The publisher, Alphée , of both of Tristan's books (at http://www.editions-alphee.com/ ) doesn't have a listing on the French Wikipedia, and I don't know enough French to determine whether they are essentially a vanity publisher plus French translations of English works from other publishers, or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The Bronze Age Computer was published by Quantum (Google books) or Foulsham (Amazon), neither of which is a reputable science publisher. I recall Quantum as being an imprint of a line of re-issued classic science fiction books.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect There is also an article about the megalithic yard. I think the two should be merged into a single article titled megalithic measurement or similar. The theories may not be widely accepted but they are widely known. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  The MY may be widely known, but can you give some references showing that "Salt Lines" and Megalithic geometry in the sense of "366-degree geometry" are widely-known theories? The Google search term ["megalithic geometry" 366 -wikipedia] gets 11 hits, which is not much for a widely-known theory.  --Lambiam 01:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never read the book but I have heard of his salt lines before. Purely anecdotal, I know. My google searches turned up about as much as yours did. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• merge to Alan Butler. I agree if they stay the articles should be merged as the text is almost identical. Of the lot I think Butler is the probably the most notable, he has written numerous books of related topics and the Guardian has reviewed some [2]. Lack of google hits and reliable sources outside the authors web-site, don't encourage claims that these are widely held fringe theories. --Salix alba (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and "gaming wikipedia for notability in real life" issues surrounding these articles are clouding my judgment, but I think that a merger of some of the content to Alan Butler would be acceptable, provided it is done carefully. However, I would object to merging with Megalithic yard or any of the other "established" fringe theories as they might bestow some their notability onto this more dubious fringe notion, violating WP:UNDUE. I suppose such a merger could be done right, but the undue thing won't even be an issue if merged and presented as a part of the an Alan Butler article. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 09:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnotable. Advertisement. Spirals31 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merging these to articles about the authors, rather than articles about the books, would be fine with me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  Are you thereby implying that, in your opinion, Sylvain Tristan (Sylvain Nicoulaud) meets the notability criterion for people?  --Lambiam 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the whole walled garden. Per WP:FRINGE, I'm not seeing the mainstream attention to these fringe theories that would make them notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Mr Eppstein, please see the copy of my letters to Dr Rubin on your talk page. I sincerely think there's much more to 366-degree geom than meets the eye. Believe it or not, but there's something here that so far nobody has been able to explain rationally. I'd love to, believe me, but still, nobody has. What is more this so-called "fringe theory" has been covered at least twice by the British paper "the Guardian," once by the "London Daily Mail," once by the French magazine "Sacree Planete", once by the French radio "Ici et maintenant," and once by the radio "Radio France International."--Snicoulaud (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have actual references for any of those? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but add Criticism section to the article for WP:NPOV. Perhaps it is pseudoscientific object, but sometime a real scientist needs info about similar objects for criticism, for historical review etc. For example, the article phlogiston theory should be kept as well. --Tim32 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  How do you propose to do that? Do you have a citation for such criticism? I'm not aware of any independent critical treatment of the theory; if such exists it might be notable, but lacking such we cannot substitute our "original research".  --Lambiam 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  No, I have no citation for such criticism. Looking for or waiting for the citation. If Megalithic geometry is pseudoscientific object then somebody from scientific community has to print something against this object ASAP. If you are expert, you can do it yourself. But Wiki has not expert functions: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” WP:V I did not read the sources about Megalithic geometry and so I can not say something about. My thought based on common sense and on Wiki rules. At the same time I am surprised: if there is no citation for such criticism, then why you are sure that this article should be deleted? May be other moot articles (UFO etc) should be deleted as well? Wiki is not the Nobel Committee to wait for very long time period, untill worth of any scientific achievement will be obvious for everybody. In Wiki “the editorial cycle is short. A paper encyclopedia stays the same until the next edition, whereas writers update Wikipedia at every instant, around the clock, ensuring that it stays abreast of the most recent events and scholarship.” Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia vs. paper encyclopedias--Tim32 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.