Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Secret des Vikings


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Le Secret des Vikings
Non notable: Here is a Google Search For references to the author of the book, in English, where the text string "is a pseudohistorical work by the French" (which is from the Wikipedia article) does not feature on the same page (the point of the exclusion being to isolate internet hits other than ones from Wikipedia or mirror sites of this particular page). There are four entries, and all are mirrors of this now deleted (by me) paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Vikings.

That is to say, the only mention of this author or this book are courtesy of Wikipedia and mirror sites.

Additionally, the book is in French, doesn't appear to have been translated into English, so while it may be notable enough for the French Wikipedia, it isn't notable in the English one. ElectricRay 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * delete, non notable per nom. &mdash; AKADriver &#x260E;  17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete while I think that if a book is notable enough for the French WP it should be notable enough for the English, the fact that it hasn't been translated into English adds to my impression that this book is non-notable. (And it's not in fr.wikipedia.org BTW). -- E ivindt@c 01:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eivind. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of room for articles about books.  Wikipedia is not paper.  Notable for containing novel theories.  By the way, your Google search is flawed, the man's name is "Joël Supéry", which gives more hits.  Book is also listed on Amazon. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. There are certainly plenty of articles en Français, certainly, and yes, it is listed on Amazon.FR (but not ~.com or ~.co.uk): - try repeating your Google search in English only. With that additional restriction (which was mentioned in my original post, note) the only mentions are, quelle surprise, mirrors of the now deleted Wikipedia section article on Vikings, and there are only a very few of them. With respect, I disagree with the view expressed elsewhere on the AfD that a book written in French that has not been translated into English, nor rated any mention anywhere on the internet on English (taking Google as a pretty good proxy for  "the internet") can somehow be notable on English Wikipedia. Feel free to add an article to the French Wikipedia, if that is your wont, but as the consensus (which I don't understand you to dispute), even from the author of the article, is that this is "pseudohistory" - i.e., bunk - it seems difficult to divine a possible conceptual reason for notability in English for this article. ElectricRay 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:GOOG says nothing about restricting searches to English &mdash; indeed it discusses searches in other languages at 6. Naming conventions (books) discusses the "correct" names of books; note the presence of Kroonenberg's untranslated (and funny, but not especially renowned) Alles went behalve een vent. Nor does it say that only English-language or translated-into-English books are inherently notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think English Wikipedia is intented to be limited to topics in the Anglosphere only. The language is English, but the scope should be universal.  --JW1805 (Talk) 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get to busted up about this, but if it's not been translated into English there has to be an element of interpretation which borders on original research, mustn't there? End of the day, I'm still not persuaded this, whether in French or English, is any more than a crackpot theory that has received no academic or significant public attention. Including articles like this puts Wikipedia in danger of becoming (even more than it already is) a receptable for trash, pet theories and mindless trivia. Let's sort the sheep from the goats here. ElectricRay 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Onme last observation: other than this deletion log, nothing links to this article. In terms of notability, that in itself is pretty telling. ElectricRay 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:JW1805. It may be (no, it is) pseudohistorical crap, but it's moderately notable and the author even got to plug it on national radio. Having an article which explains that this book is pseudohistory is a Good Thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 10 May 2006 (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.