Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early discovery of the Faroe Islands


 * 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, due to an early discovery of WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Early discovery of the Faroe Islands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Series of articles promoting the editor's (, WP:FRINGE claims about 'early discovery' of various islands. Other articles are: All are cited solely to Jonge & Wakefield's publications in what appear to be unreliable sources (I can find no evidence of the publisher of most of them, "Medical Communications & Services", outside the context of these books). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Late addition: after this AfD started de Jonge created, making largely the same claims and WP:SELFCITEing the same sources. Commenters may wish to state whether they wish to include this article in their 'delete all' !votes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Early Discovery. The new article has exactly the same problems, with De Jonge citing himself in fringe publications, presenting fringe material as unchallenged fact. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete. Lack of secondary sourcing is the issue. If any can be found before the AfD closes, I'd happily rethink my position. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. None are anything other than stubs about a fringe theory from a single source, with no evidence of notability provided whatsoever. Even with secondary sources, unless the subject has been discussed elsewhere in reliable sources (e.g. within mainstream archaeology) it is unlikely to meet notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. These are pure fringe articles. There is nothing to suggest that the theory is notable. If there is some evidence that it is (which as yet there isn't) all article content can be rolled up into a single article on the theory. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not just sourcing, although that is a serious problem, these are all clear pov WP:CFORKs. I also think that on their own the titles/articles don't meet our notability criteria either. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:No original research and WP:REDFLAG. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all - oh how may I count the ways? Lack of secondary sources, original research, and a helping of WP:BOLLOCKS. ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all - as complete original research and as content forks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all - As per of the creators own admission, "there are no primary sources available from other authors, which are relevant to this subject". Which means that the conflict of interest and original research issues can't be fixed. And this is even without getting into the fringe and notability questions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That comment also appears to be admitting that the books in question were self-published, meaning that it is even less likely that they can be considered WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all. No good sources! The references are littered with fringe articles by De Jonge published in fringe magazines such as Ancient American. The magazine states clearly that it is "In sharp contrast to majority academic opinion", so of course it is useless as a linchpin source supposedly proving notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all per expat et al. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: this is the point at which Early Discovery was included as a 'late addition'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete that one too, block the editor under WP:COMPETENCE. Sorry, I've tried to explain the situation to this editor repeatedly now (see my talk) but he just doesn't get it. In particular I warned him that creating new articles without addressing the point at issue would simply be seen as a disruptive attempt to sneak past our usual slow-moving processes. Enough's enough - if he hasn't yet found any 3rd party support, we can only assume that there isn't any. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My vote includes Early Discovery, since it is an exact copy of the other articles and thus has all the same problems. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all - essentially single sourced, do not establish notability, and almost certainly breach of WP:COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all Per all the above. --Folantin (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. At this point, since Dr. de Jonge seems to be aware of the AfDs, and has chosen not to respond, I'd suggest that we apply WP:SNOW here, and delete the lot (including the new one) immediately. Someone might suggest to Dr. de Jonge that if he wishes to get a properly sourced single article about the subject into Wikipedia, he prepares it in his user space, and allows others to comment - after he has studied our requirements for reliable secondary sources. Frankly, I see no point in wasting further effort on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment My !vote also includes Early Discovery. Obviously I can't get involved in any closure, that will be up to some other Admin. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete All as per nominator. This appears to be a non-notable fringe theory being pushed by a single purpose account with a conflict of interest. Edward321 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear moderators: The claim has been mainly based on decipherment of the two mentioned groups of petroglyphs. The only text which could be added to the articles is the following: "Both groups of petroglyphs are prooven to be megalithic (Ref.1). Both the passage grave of Cairn T at Loughcrew, and the petroglyphs in it, date from the time of the construction of Stonehenge I in South England, c.3200 BC (Refs.1-5). The eleven petroglyphs of Dissignac were made one after the other, spread in time from before the construction of the passage grave, c.4500 BC, to c.2500 BC, after which the monument was closed (Refs.6-9). As far is known, the interpretations of both groups of petroglyphs are not disputed in the literature."
 * Comment Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands


 * References:
 * 1. Twohig, E. Shee, The Megalithic Art of Western Europe, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981
 * 2. Eogan, G., Knowth, and the Passage Tombs of Ireland, Thames and Hudson, 1986 (ISBN 0-500-39023-1).
 * 3. Dames, M., Mythic Ireland, Thames & Hudson, London, 1992 (ISBN 0-500-27872-5)
 * 4. Richards, J., Stonehenge, English Heritage, 1992 (ISBN 0-7134-6142-X))
 * 5. Atkinson, R.J.C., Stonehenge, London, 1979
 * 6. Briard, J., The Megaliths of Brittany, 1991 (ISBN 2-87747-063-6)
 * 7. Giot, P.R., Prehistory in Brittany, Ed. JOS (ISBN 2-85543--123-9)
 * 8. Giot, P.R., La Bretagne. des Megalithes, Ed. Ouest France, 1995 (ISBN 2-7373-1388-0) (French)
 * 9. Batt, M., and others, Au Pays des Megalithes, Carnac-Loc-mariaquer, Ed. JOS, 1991 (ISBN 2-85543-001-1) (French)
 * --Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for adding these. I would note though that your first publication (that I can see) is 1996, which post-dates all of these. It would thus be difficult for any of these references to be a commentary on what's at issue here, which is not the existence of petroglyophs in Brittany, but rather your theory based on these petroglyphs.
 * Is your theory based on some earlier work described in these references? Or is there any later reference that comments on your work? That is what we are still in need of. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands Dear moderators: The core of the articles dates from the publication of the SunGod book in 2002. This is 9 years ago. Our book was well received, and the conclusions are not disputed in the literature. It is that simple. For that reason I cannot give "secondary sourcing". - If the archaeological community does not react in this case, it is their responsibility, not mine.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Where was it "well received"? Where in the literature were its conclusions mentioned without dispute?  This is the independent commentary that is needed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Except for other R.M. de Jonge publications and a single Atlantis theory publication, Google Scholar draws a blank on the Sungod book. I think that it would be very wrong to interpret the complete silence of the academic archaeology community on these theories as tacit approval. It is much more likely that the reason is that no scholar takes them serious enough even to warrant a written rejection of them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the reason for lack of independent comment, our key policy WP:No original research is clear: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If this book was "well received" then there should be positive reviews of it in reliable sources. Where are they? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are none. The book did not attract even the slight effort of a scholarly rebuttal. This material from De Jonge is not useful to us. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Dutch book was well received in the archaeological community in the Netherlands (my co-author is/was a professor in archaeology in Amsterdam), but, as far as I know, it was never scientifically commented (which is not my responsibility). The SunGod book of 2002 was well received in the USA (where it was published and printed), by Ancient American Magazine, by MES (Midwestern Epigraphic Society) in Columbus, Ohio, and by NEARA (New England Antiquity Research Association), by AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society) in Michigan, by Ancient Waterways Society, etc. The same holds for the third mentioned book Rocks & Rows. - "Is your theory based on some earlier work described in these references?" The answer is: No. "Or is there any later reference that comments on your work?" The answer is: As far as I know: No. - "well received"? "Where in the literature were its conclusions mentioned without dispute? This is the independent commentary that is needed here." Well, what we need is a scientific comment from the archaeological community, worldwide. As far as I know this is lacking, but I immediately add that this is not my responsibility! They had the opportunity to react for more than nine years!- - I would like to add, that the exact dates are based on the two groups of petroglyphs, but the same approximate dates are confirmed by many other monuments and petroglyphs in Europe.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands
 * Lack of comment by scholars in the field is detrimental to a book's usefulness as a source on Wikipedia. Sorry, but Ancient American Magazine, MES, NEARA, and your circle of friends are not reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No reaction on these important conclusions means that all readers basically agree.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, it could mean that they can't be bothered to respond to something not worth responding to, it might be that no one who knew about the subject read it, etc. There are many fringe claims which never get responded to by the academic community. (which is what the above edit is suggesting I think, just more tersely) Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The absence of a reaction is absolutely not agreement. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: all of the specific groups that de Jonge mentions appear to be amateur enthusiast groups, so would not count as reliable sources, even if evidence had been presented that they had performed a formal, published review of this book (which hasn't occurred). I therefore have to concur that nothing that he has presented qualifies as providing the slightest basis for judging this hypothesis to be notable. The world is filled with thousands of self-published books promoting pet theories. Few, if any, of them garner academic notice (even scornful) -- presumably most academics have enough on their hands debunking claims that are better financed/more heavily promoted, or come with at least the colour of academic respectability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the official archaeological community, in North America in particular, is very conservative with its conclusions. It is not so long ago, that they refused to think about somethimg else then the discovery of America by Columbus, in 1492. They now admit an earlier discovery by the Norse (or Vikings) in Newfoundland, in c.1000 AD. However, there are literaly thousands(!) of books which prove without a shadow of a doubt, that America was discovered before that date. This is not a wise attitude, and it undermines their credibility. I am talking about the Smithonian Institute in particular.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * The Smithsonian Institute, whose staff suggest that Europeans came to North America over 15,000 years ago as did the Japanese (a bit later)? Your argument is both wrong (which shows a disturbing lack of knowledge) and irrelevant here. I don't know when it was thought that the Vikings didn't visit America, but I was taught that they did and that was in the early 1950s. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all, including Early Discovery. Article content is not supported by reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge has had his say. There is no point in dragging out the above discussion. I agree with AndyTheGrump that the AfD should be closed per WP:SNOW. Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 25 June 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.