Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmore bone


 * 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. For now anyway as there is not a consensus on a merge/redirect target. I'd be happy to restore the article with full history upon request so that it may be merged and redirected. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dalmore bone

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is not a notable artefact. It appears to have been created as an off-shoot of Megalithic Yard and to promote the dubious claim that there was a 'megalithic yard'. Also please note that although its creator knows that Clive Ruggles is the editor of the book including the claims by Scott & Ponting, he is not the author of those claims as it would appear from the cite (hopefully this will be corrected as it was corrected elsewhere). This article is more or less identical to two others created as the same time, Dalgety bone bead and Patrickholme bone bead in that all three seem to serve the same purpose and have the same sources. Dougweller (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not quite sure on what grounds you think it's not a notable artefact? Haven't you got any brackety reasons? It's reliably sourced rare Bronze Age material, doubtless of great importance to the people of Scotland and for consideration of how they built Scottish stone circles and the like. It's probably also noteable in the visual arts category. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 00:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment They are not all the same sources. I have included seperate archaeological reports documenting the original discoveries for each one. Just one source would be sloppy. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 00:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentActually a number of what looked like separate sources were all from Ponting, either directly or from somone citing Ponting. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I can assure you, bits of bone aren't "rare" on sites of any period. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 07:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete All of those artefacts are clearly not notable. There's no indication they've been mentioned outside of the original site reports and Ruggles' (WP:FRINGE) book. They haven't been the subject of scholarly papers, prime exhibits in a museum exhibition, or mentioned in the mainstream press – the sort of things you see in notable artefacts like the Venus of Dolní Věstonice or the Sutton Hoo helmet, for example. There are just 2 google hits for Dalmore bone and 1 scholar. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 07:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok it's not the Venus de Milo but it is more than just a bone. It's a square sectioned bone with a hole through it and markings on the outside. This is not your average bone! Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 13:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep Apart from this book, this reference have a detailed coverage of the topic (though completely not available under google books preview) --Reference Desker (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentUm, the article says discovered in 1982 but the first reference is dated to 1908. The second reference is used 3 times already. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment: the 1908 reference refers to "ten burial deposits were unearthed at Dalmore, Alness, Ross-shire" in 1878, i.e a completely different site. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep or merge into a Excavations of Dalgety♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I do believe you're seeing in the future of a different deletion discussion there Dr. B. This one could be merged into Excavations of Dalmore perhaps, but I have provided extra sources to reference not only the excavations, but this artefact as notable in it's own right. I've unearthed a direct mention of the bone in "Archaeoastronomy", "British Archaeological Abstracts" (Which talk about a Danish measuring rod I must go find more about), a French archaeological source (which also mentions the Danish) and it's also in a reliable Springer book by Giulio Magli (28 May 2009). Mysteries and discoveries of archaeoastronomy: from Giza to Easter Island. I've also greatly expanded the page with details of the markings and their measurements which are detailed in an external link I've added to a letter from Euan Mackie in the Antiquity Review that discusses it. Hopefully this will stop me and Doug fighting over this bone and hope he won't do me for civility again if I growl at him....Grrrrr... ;-) Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 14:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that with those recent sources and additions it clearly qualifies for its own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's better but still relies heavily on Ponting. I'm with Blofeld's first suggestion, an article on the excavations with this as a redirect would work for me. I really would like more detail in citations, among other things Paul I know that in the past you've relied on snippets, etc (if I remember correctly, if I don't, forgive me). Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you can get more out of snippet view books by searching on them than you can in the actual snippets, as is the case with some of my sources. To clarify, I've added to the article A review in the Journal "Archaeoastronomy" said "A recent discovery by Margaret Ponting at Dalmore of a bone artefact whose markings correspond to the 'megalithic inch' (MI) seems consistent with Thom's metrological hypothesis." The British Archaeological abstracts discussed Ponting's paper on Callanish mentioning "A bone artefact from Dalmore, marked in apparent 1/4MI units, is discussed along with wooden rods from Denmark divided into 8MI (=1/5th MY) units." The Magli book is free to read and documents it quite nicely as well. Hope that's sufficient. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 15:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should include the details of the review in your reference. "Title: Book-Review - Records in Stone - Papers in Memory of Alexander Thomm Authors: Radoslavova, T. RCHAEOASTRONOMY. JNL.HIST.ASTR.:SUPPL. V. 21, P. S62, 1990 Bibliographic Code: 1990JHAS...21...62R" p. 63 The BA abstract is presumably an abstract of her paper. And the Magli book just cites Ponting, but it does do that at least. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect. We clearly can't have an article on every artefact found at a dig, and it appears to have had little external attention except in reference to fringe theories. While such theories merit appropriate coverage in Wikipedia, to include individual articles on evidential matters that would fail to meet notability standards seems to me to be giving undue weight. The Dalmore bone can adequately be covered in the main article on the theory, though a redirect would not be inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think archaeological expeditions are an extremely undeveloped part of wikipedia. I know of many prominent Egyptian excavations over years which should have articles as they discovered enormously important tombs and artifacts. I think the best think first would be to create articles on the overall digs and summarise the findings. Then if certain artifacts are very notable they can be branched out into seperate articles. I'd say for this it would valuable to have an article on the overall dig and its finding, even if we have separate articles on findings.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I've participated in one long-running UK dig which I think was notable enough and know of many others, including probably some of the ones you are thinking of. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some work on Dail Mor yesterday considering this, adding the image, brief details of excavation and infobox. I'm still of the view that notable artifacts such as the McClelland Sherd from Tell Jisr should be covered separately if adequate reliable coverage is given to them. I still think this is the case even if the artifacts are relatively minor such as marked pottery or bones that have been analyzed and reported on adequately and notably. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 15:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep - not a very interesting article (IMO) but meets guidelines. Perhaps it could be improved. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: this article appears to be a concatenation of a small number of WP:PRIMARY sources simply describing this artefact (and I would assume numerous others found in the same dig), together with WP:FRINGE claims about it representing a "Megalithic Yard". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - appropriately sourced and objectively written. The article itself makes no claims - it simply reports the claims made in some of its sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: - and merge a couple of extra detail into Dail Mòr. The findings would be completely unremarkable if it were not for the claim that it has a role in verifying a fringe theory. Incidentally, I could not find the January 1983 PSAS content and a more specific link would be helpful.  Ben   Mac  Dui  18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone had deleted the part of the article the PSAS 1983 referenced, relating the bone to Beaker people, then left the reference dangling. I've replaced the beaker part so it references that directly. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge: Delete or merge with an article describing the excavation as a whole. Carved bones are quite common in excavations, being carved in itself is not sufficient justification for inclusion in WP. As regards the claim of the carvings having mathematical meaning; using some mathematical magic, I can probably find a "megalithic inch or cm" in any random carved bone. And just to be sure, the comparisons in Megalithic Yard with Sumerian and Indian measurements are rightout WP:FRINGE, as is probably the megalithic yard itself (IMHO).--Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As some one who done some Archeological Research (Read if interested or WP:TROUT for Narcissism) I am going to drop my opinion here and take it for what you will. The notability for Single artifact from an Archeological Excavation would have to be extremely exceptional artifact cited by multiple peer reviewed studies and more then just mention in few conference papers and brief mention in popular science book. This artifact notability seems dubious as best for several reasons. (A) This source indicates there was no substantial excavations of the site where this thing was found. This means such bone is essentially useless until such an full or partial excavation occurs. (B) the only source to give substantial coverage seems to be one abstract and discussion here seems to indicate we are citing the abstract and no one here is has actually read the paper! It could be entirely possible that the paper includes substantial disclaimer about the lack of actual evidence or "further research needs to be done to discover x." (C) Lacking peer reviewed paper on the bone itself I can't see the notability aspect at all. (D) According to WP:NOTE specifically  "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" the only source to discuss it that I linked to above seems to spend maybe a couple of paragraphs on the bone thus filing WP:SIGCOV. The fact I already gone through several Archeo databases and cant find single peer reviewed publication on it speaks volumes. This perhaps could go into an Article on Megaliths or Margaret Ponting but really frankly cant evaluate it as having enough merit to warrant its own article. (F) Add on top of all that the WP:FRINGE concerns and it really can not stand  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to excavation article. This doesn't have enough significant sources to merit its own article. It seems that it was made into its own article in order to promote a theory about antique measurements. That's a fringe theory that should be covered in Megalithic Yard and/or Pseudoscientific metrology. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2011 (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.