Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Götaland theory (0th nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Götaland theory
I do not think that this article belongs in Wikipedia. Firstly, it treats a theory which is ridiculed by scholars and has no proponents at universities. Secondly, there is no way to treat this article that resembles NPOV, but any serious treatment will sound like it is cutting the theory to pieces Wiglaf 21:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then rip it to pieces in the article, but keep the article. --Scimitar parley 21:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep we have other things like Creationism and Intelligent Design that sound a lot like what you describe. Mmmbeer 21:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and please rip to shreds! We can't ignore things purely because they are idiotic. Agentsoo 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article seems to make it clear that this theory has little credibility, so I see no reason to delete it. &mdash;PrologFan {Talk} 22:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rip to shreds with verifiable citations and with NPOV. Barno 01:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Some references would be good. Capitalistroadster 01:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, that it's absurd, disputed and laughed at doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered. Ashmodai 06:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Improve by explaining, to the non-Gotalanders among us, why the exact location of these places is of universal importance, please --Simon Cursitor 09:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're familiar with Beowulf, you may have heard of the Geats as a tribe in southern Sweden which were conquered by the Swedes and disappeared from history. Well, they did not disappear from Scandinavian history, and today a small number of modern Geats have created this revisionist theory according to which the Swedes were also Geats, so the Geats were not conquered by the Swedes. It is a strange logic, but they try to make it sound reasonable by placing the ancient locations of the Swedish heartland in the core province of the Geats.--Wiglaf 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this explanation. Having now read (below) your correspondence with User:Elisson, I am convinced that this is a subject which needs to be kept on Wikipaedia, so that those who *don't* know the intimate Geatish background can find out that there is a dispute and what it is about.  Accordingly I am now voting to keep, expand, clean-up and generally improve.  --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Appears to be a notable crank theory. JamesBurns 10:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is only notable in Sweden.--Wiglaf 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and add counterarguments - Skysmith 10:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I share Wiglaf's concern. The academic consensus is indeed totally against this theory (or rather, fantasy). But provided the article is indeed allowed to introduce the massive and conclusive evidence against the theory, which will indeed rip it to pieces, I guess I won't oppose keeping. / Alarm 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable theories, no matter how stupid they are (like Flat Earth Society), should have articles. -- Elisson &bull; Talk 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unlikely theories if they're notable (as this one certainly seems to be).--Pharos 04:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyone is assumming its notable because so much is written in the article. Can anyone link me to any non wikipedia or wikipedia mirror sources that verify this contraversy? Also, to editors of this article: remember that a big NPOV trap is that minor crackpot theories can't just be countered by an obvious counter argument unless you can find and cite that argument being used (otherwise its original research which is verboten). Too often editors just write counter arguments to create balance but create original research in the process. (68.127.166.133)
 * Yes, I totally agree.--Wiglaf 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't assume it's notable because the size of the article (how would you know what I am assuming?). I think it's notable because I've heard and read about it in a lot of different medias during a long time. Take for example Jan Guillou's books about Arn, or Dag Stålsjö's book and tv-series, or any of all foras where the question is dicussed. -- Elisson &bull; Talk 12:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jan Guillou's work of historical fiction concerns a much later time period (the 12th century and the 13th century) when it is uncontested that some Geatish families played an important part. Concerning Dag Stålsjö his TV-show was shown once in the 70s. It was ridiculed, rejected and has not been shown since.--Wiglaf 13:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jan Guillou still touches the subject, even if the series doesn't cover the correct period. You said everyone was assuming the article is notable because it is long. I proved you wrong. You wanted sources that verified the controversy. I gave you Dag Stålsjö (doesn't matter that he was ridiculed, he is a proof that the theory is and was alive). Need I say more? You may also note that there are 12 keep votes and no oppose, except for your strange nomination. -- Elisson &bull; Talk 21:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess we have a believer in the Götaland theory at Wikipedia, and that I have stepped on your toes! I know Jan Guillou personally, and I think he would be insulted by being associated with this fantasy. Note that the fact that this belief is notable in Västergötland, where you live, does not make it notable on the level fitting for Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 21:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you insult me by saying that I am a believer of the Götaland theory. It is your ignorance I dislike. And you are an admin? What the... What is happening with Wikipedia? I don't care if you know Guillou, his books have been interpreted by many as supporting the theory, no matter what Guillou personally thinks about it. The theory is not only known in Västergötland, which you should know, but in the whole of Sweden. Notable or not in your opinion doesn't make a difference, we have 12 keep votes and no delete votes. You might be able to figure something out of that. As User:JIP on a page far away from this once said: "Have you ever considered that the reason why everyone says you are wrong might be that you are wrong?" -- Elisson &bull; Talk 11:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I am an admin due to my concerns for the quality of Wikipedia, as I am now. Perhaps, you have noticed that the keep votes stopped after 68.127.166.133's post. The previous nominators assumed that it was notable due to the article's length, and the length was due to a User:Wilmer T, an original researcher who is usually cut to pieces every time he appears on a discussion site, such as Skalman. Sorry, but I still think that Wikipedia would be better off without it. When I saw the great editor User:Jallan be influenced by this article, I realized that it does more damage than good.--Wiglaf 13:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As a non-admin, I'd prefer admins of Wikipedia to be more humble than you are. Assuming a lot of things about other wikipedians is not humble. All votes stopped after 68.127.166.133's post. I still see no delete votes. I don't care how ridiculous the theory is, and how cut to pieces User:Wilmer T is on Skalman. There are articles on subjects even more ridiculous. Why would Wikipedia be better off without it? Wikipedia is not a place for "the truth", Wikipedia is a place for articles about truths and lies and ridiculous theories, as long as they are notable. Götaland theory is notable. I am going away tomorrow (see notice at my user page), so don't expect any answer from me in a while. -- Elisson &bull; Talk 15:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That is unfair! I could have removed most of the content as original research and as unreferenced long ago. As for its notability, I guess it is different for someone who lives in Götaland, but this is not the Swedish Wikipedia.-Wiglaf 15:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What is unfair? That people tend to not agree with you in this particular question? I don't see any original research in the article. You may want to read what the policy says. Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The Götaland theory; 1. is not a theory created by editors of Wikipedia; 2. has been published elsewhere (Dag Stålsjö's TV-series, for example). I agree about the sources, though. But that is not a reason to delete the article. As for its notability, then why have Brits, Americans, Australians and Germans voted keep? And don't keep on repeating the "long article" argument... -- Elisson &bull; Talk 16:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is unfair that you call me arrogant, since I have allowed the information to stay so far. Since Wilmer T did not provide any references, I would consider most to be his own original research. Even if there were references we would have to weed out self-published material and authors resorting to spiritism and faked quotes. Note that I am entitled to ask the Wikipedia community about whether the article should stay.--Wiglaf 17:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Notable crackpot theory. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:59, 3 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.