Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cifrangon


 * 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 as original research. This doesn't mean it's bad, it just means Wikipedia is not the place for it. Friday (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cifrangon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research, pure and simple. Cifrangon returns 7 GHits, the alternative spelling of Cyfrangon returns 6. None of the returns are reliable sources and the only source provided is a book by the author of the article. The author has also been adding facts based on his book to other articles in what appears to be a bout of self promotion. Nuttah68 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I am the author of the article, and the data provided are the result of my own efforts, and not taken from any book, I can assure you that I have nothing whatsoever to do with any book published on the subject. I simply quote it as an extra source of information. The remarks of Nuttah68 are therefore not only deliberate falsehoods - that is, he is a liar, - but also DEFAMATORY, and as such inadmissible under Wikipedia standards. As my own site shows, I am an MSc student at Glamorgan University, and can be contacted there. In my article I have provided evidence which is provable on the net. You don't have to go there, though the coordinates are provided for you. I do not make the asseveration that Twyn y Glog is Cyfrangon, but simply suggest that if such a place exists, then this hill is a very likely place to start looking. The geophysical results obtained and the geological analysis from the National Museum of Wales can not be described as 'crackpottery' They are fact, plain and simple.

Ouldbob 10:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouldbob (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll be honest, the majority of your rant does not help your cause, the opening 'the data provided are the result of my own efforts' condemns you per WP:OR. As for Tim, I've no idea who your nemesis is, but I can assure you (as can other editors), I am not he. Nuttah68 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. One of the joys of Wikipedia is coming across and reading up on areas of study you've never encountered before.  While I may not be particularly knowledgeable in your theories on Welsh history, that doesn't mean I (or anyone else) has been "put up" to commenting on this AfD.  That said, I am fairly well versed in the Wikipedia guidelines, and I know Original Research (and please click here to read the policy) when I see it. FiggyBee 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well then, while accepting that this is a narrow exploration of a narrow aspect of Welsh history, - one which would be noticed only by a few people who would be aware of the subject, unless you are a scolar of such areas as the Bruts, Harleian and Bodleian mss, Chad, Mabinogi and Landavensis, how did you come upon the site? You are attacking an established history of which you know nothing: why? You describe my statements as a 'rant'. again, why? I am being attacked for trying to further knowledge of Welsh history. Unless you are Welsh, you could not even begin to understand. Read the histories, read the stones, read the names of the geological features. Every field in Wales had a name: did you know that? This article is not for self glorification: it is not out of vanity that I created the site, but out of joy at unravelling another knot in the history of Wales. I would have remained anonymous, but you and your friends attacked me from a position of total ignorance of the subject. You accuse me of taking my information from a book which I could not have read, because neither could you. The authors tell me that it is in the process of being printed. You accuse me of being the author, and a self publicist: that is defamatory: I am not, and can prove it. I therefore challenge you: prove your case or apologise and never ever sit in judgement on someone else on Wikipedia, particularly not on someone who is not a smug git like you, but who has just started. Prove your allegations or back off.Ouldbob 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. To quote 'You accuse me of taking my information from a book which I could not have read' yet you have listed this as a reference for all of the material you have added to Wikipedia. Even more so I am led to believe what you have added is WP:OR and unsupported by reliable sources.

Nuttah68 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC) I have also quoted the Bruts, Tyssilio, LLandavensis, Chad, Mabinogi, and Bodleian and Harleian ms. What is your problem? You do not answer the question of how you came to my article. Why not? If you are so damn clever about Welsh history, dewch y siarad. Ah, sorry, I forgot, you're not Welsh are you? Ond tippin bach? Nage? Dim Cymraeg? If you do not speak the language and know sod all about the country, crawl back into your hole. Where is the apology for your defamatory remarks? Or do you persist in accusing me of writing a book? Of course I know about the book: I was asked for permission to include work which we have done. This work was simply an evaluation of statements in old texts in Latin and Welsh, and the physical verification of that evaluation. Your hostility is obvious, and your reluctance to come clean is disgraceful. Yet again, I point out that you have stated that I am using this to publicise a book which you claim I have written. THIS IS DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Liar, and damned liar. I have never written a book in my life. Withdraw your false allegation immediately.


 * Delete as original research. FiggyBee 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable crackpottery. —David Eppstein 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, well! The terriers are yapping today! Why this hostility? Why do I keep seeing the phrase peer reviewed cropping up as well? Let me ask you something: has the venerable Bede been peer reviewed? Has the Magna Carta? So why, when I am quoting established British historical texts does someone suggest that my sources need to be peer reviewed? Is this article stepping on someone's toes, I wonder? There's enough vitriol in this to put ICI out of business. Ouldbob 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and sow the site with salt. It's a pity there isn't WP:AUTHORPILLOCK. This article is WP:NN, WP:NOR, and for that matter WP:NPOV and WP:NONSENSE. Pete Fenelon 01:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources I quote are part of the corpus of Welsh/British history. There are many thousand such sources available - usually by arrangement - with libraries such as the Louvre, the Vatican library, the Harleian and the Bodleian. As I have indicated above, I would not expect centuries old texts and thousand year old stones to need to be subject to peer review. They have been logged and recorded and few remain even mildly controversial in translation. These sources can be consulted. Would it not have been wiser to consult them before attacking me? Furthermore I have given you a simple geophysical test which you can use yourself, and an example in England upon which you can test it, together with the coordinates which will enable you to apply the test to the subject area. Would it not have been wiser to try that test, - before lambasting me? I have indicated that the history of Wales is written in the landscape, - that every field, river, wood - pob clogwen, pob dyffryn, had a name. The tithe maps are available: you can look at them yourself. Of course, they are not peer reviewed either. Does that make them invalid? Also, they are not on Wikipedia: does that reduce their value? Furthermore, you can hardly call Welsh history 'original research'. Simply because it is a new field to you, does not make it OR. If I supply translations and copies of old Welsh documents, you would still reject them, because they are not 'peer reviewed' nor yet part of the corpus of wikipedia. Everything I have said is verifiable. All you need to do is look. The only aspect of this which is any way original is the thought that Twyn y Glog might be a good place to start looking for Cyfrangon. Cyfrangon itself is a part of Welsh legend, - not mythology. I didn't make it up. St. Ilid is part of Welsh history. I didn't make him up. The Welsh have lived in their own country for thousands of years and are even mentioned in Greek legends - Orion was the only one brave enough to hunt here - so it is natural that their history is all around them. The English are a mongrel race and are very recent in their lands, so the land tells stories in different languages, and has mostly been forgotten. Not so here. I cannot peer review the land. It is there and always has been, nor can I peer review the traditions that the Welsh came from the Israelites. Ouldbob 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are some references which appear to be academic papers, but they don't appear on Google Scholar. Can I ask if the references have been peer reviewed (this is normally done by publishing it in an academic journal). There's precious little on Google, but there is a reference in this publication dated 1828, which further references "the Triads". Incidentally, the book is published by Trafford, who are vanity publishers. --h2g2bob (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - bizarre and outlandish theory, would need strong verifiable sources, but all I see is OR. Benea 09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Andy. Unfortunately the time allowed does not permit me to access the sources, simpy because I have a habit of lending out good books to people with enquiring minds, and all mine are out at the moment. I had no idea that I would need them. I would however refer people to the much maligned published works of Wilson and Blackett, including Adrian Gilbert on one, and Grant Berkly on some others. The most extensive biblio is at the back of 'Artorius Rex discovered'. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was simply reporting genuine findings since I thought that they would be of interest to other people. Although I am aware that any mention of Welsh history tends to suffer attack, this was not exactly an historical article, and I felt that it would escape the usual fate. I was astounded at being accused of trying to publicise a book, and equally astounded at being told that I had written it. It is just simply not true, and a completely unjustified attack on my integrity. All I am guilty of is writing a few terribly poor scientific papers over the last fifty years. Nothing else. It is hardly surprising that I lost my temper at these allegations, - and the promulgator has still neither withdrawn nor apologised for these calumnies, - for such they are. I am still sore, and I am still angry, as I am sure you would be at a totally unjustified attack and at being villified in such a manner. I have shown how Google earth can be used to find artifical constructs where the terrain appears natural. I would have considered that that alone was worthy of being retained. Google earth were unaware of this until I told them some three years ago. The resting place of the Ark is a controversial subject I know, yet the Irish claim that it lies in Tara's Halls goes by without comment, - and I am not even claiming that it lies here; I am simply exhibiting the fact that this huge hill is an artificial construct, like Silbury Hill, only quite a bit bigger, and I am not hiding my evidence, I am practically begging people to have a look for themselves. When I first discovered this, I could not believe it myself, and called in various people around the world, including in my own University, to try it themselves. We all considered that this was a flaw in the Google earth operating system, and I wrote to them to tell them so. Then, trying the concept out on such objects as pyramids, I discovered that when the scale was small enough, I could read how the floor dipped inside the pyramid, but not how high the pyramid was. Perhaps I should simply have put up an article which drew attention to the comparisons between this hill and Silbury. After all, despite local legend, nobody knew or even suspected that the hill was artificial, the farmer who owns it still finds it hard to believe. A twyn is a burial mound, and this is what I suspected that this hill was initially. I still think that that is the most likely explanation and that the metal objects are grave goods. Again, thank you for your politeness in the midst of vitriol. This was my first attempt at creating a new article. I suspect that it will be my last. At least my editing of mycological and astronomical papers cannot be seen as controversial. Bob.Ouldbob 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Andy: As you will see, I have removed the page. My thanks to those who tried to guide me through this mess, and my curses upon those who insulted me, particularly fenelon of York and nuttah68 whose attacks and insults were completely unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouldbob (talk • contribs)
 * Comments. I think some fairly detailed comments are needed, here, and I've not got long so I may come back and add some more, later:
 * Assuming it is true that "Cyfrangon is a fabled site thought to be in Southeast Wales alleged to hold the Ark of the Covenant", and that a number of the ancient texts including Mabinogion say so, then it is quite probable that this subject is notable enough for wikipedia, and it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources which say so. If those are identified and cited in full with page numbers etc. before this AfD closes, then the page itself may well be kept, focusing on that.
 * The idea that Cyfrangon is situated up a hill in Ynysybwl seems to be regarded by everybody, here (including me, frankly) as a truly bizarre idea that cannot form the basis of this article unless there are reliable sources which say so (or, alternatively, acknowledge a controversy) and the facts as set out in the article make it absolutely clear there are none.
 * It is, of course, ridiculous to demand that oral traditions, Mabinogion (etc.) are peer-reviewed. However that is not what we are asking for. Wikipedia is a "tertiary" publisher. That is, there are primary sources (the oral tradition, the ancient texts, real-world geological data, etc.) then there are secondary sources - people who research the primary sources and publish their conclusions in peer-reviewed journals, then there's us, the tertiaries, people who write encyclopedias: reporting human knowledge using the secondary, peer-reviewed sources. That is what our WP:OR policy is about. Ouldbob and his collegue seem to be in the process of doing the secondary research, which is why we don't think this material is acceptable here, yet.
 * I understand Ouldbob's frustration. He hasn't been treated with much patience or understanding since he got here. I'd remind everybody that we do try NOT to bite the newbies (see WP:BITE). On the other hand, Ouldbob you will need to try to take our concerns seriously, and refrain from attacking other users, or there is a real chance that you will be blocked from editing, altogether. AndyJones 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree you have been treated rather roughly, there is no WP:AUTHORPILLOCK for a good reason, and it wasn't helpful for that the user to label you as such. However Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, where we have quite strict standards to adhere to, and these policies are not optional.  As a scientist, I'm sure you understand this.  Wikipedia is not a scientific journal where new results are published, but a encyclopedia that reports on extensively peer reviewed subjects.  Unfortunately the work you describe has so far not had this treatment and is not eligible for inclusion at the moment.  Nor is it sufficient to ask readers to do their own research to prove these theories by using google earth or other methods.  This is Original Reseach and is simply not allowed.  Your opinions as to what the hill is and what it contains are points of view and again are not allowed.  I'm sorry if this has been a rough experience, but please try to keep a calm head.  Making accusations and personal attacks will only damage your case, and will only encourage people to continue upsetting you with hurtful comments.  But please take it from long term wikipedia editors that your article is simply in violation of our policies (WP:OR, WP:POV) and is not an attack on Welsh history, culture or anything of that nature.  Benea 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another thought, following on from my previous points, is that Wicipedia doesn't have an article on this topic, and that might well be a worthwhile place to start a decent article, since it is likely to attract interest and debate, there, and I note that you (Ouldbob) are in the gallu siarad Cymraig camp. My feeling is that you're more likely to be able to build a featured article, there: and once that's done it will be more welcome, here. I mention this suggestion because I don't want to reject the idea of this material belonging on wikipedia, but I think there's a very good chance - if you can't add decent sources - that this article will be deleted, soon. AndyJones 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Close and Speedy Delete now, if possible. Ouldbob has blanked the page himself and he was the only substantial editor to work on it, and in view of his comment above, can we treat this as if it was a {db-author}? I wish Ouldbob luck following-up this research though. It sounds interesting. AndyJones 13:38, 15 September 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.