Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Wolter


 * 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   redirect to America Unearthed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Scott Wolter
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recreation of a previously deleted article. I don't see that any additional sources establishing notability per WP:ANYBIO have arisen since the last AfD. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * redirect to America Unearthed, a likely search term but WP:BLP1E his only possible claim to notability is the show. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TRPod, BLP1E's first requirement is that “reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event”; I cited 10 or so RS articles below about Wolter that predate the television show, as well as discussions about him in books (see Zimmerman or Kehoe) that predate the show. I'm not saying those make him a notable topic, just pointing out that I don't think the topic is properly disqualified under BLP1E. ––Agyle (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list, I hopefully will have some time soon to review the contents. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to series, which in a small way is popular in the States. Should this lead to Wolter becoming more popular/visible on TV, a redirect would prevent asking someone to undo the deletion. I was going to vote Weak Keep due to his being published, but neither he nor his works are globally notable. —  Wylie pedia  11:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CAWylie, Wolter's program is broadcast on H2 Canada, but I don't think any of the notability criteria require global or international notability, unless I'm overlooking a guideline. ––Agyle (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Most references I found predate the prior AfD review, and the small amount of newer material is similar to older material. His television show is now in its second season, but it had premiered before the prior AfD decision. Here's a partial list, categorized and slightly annotated, for consideration in assessing notability.

Books by Wolter (including self-published works, as some of these are cited/reviewed/mentioned by reliable sources):
 * [SELF-PUBLISHED, I think] Amazon also lists a 1994 edition published by Burgess International Group under ISBN 978-0808752714, which I think is an independent publisher. See next edition as well.
 * [Independently published, I think, but not certain] 3rd edition was published by Outernet Publishing in 1999 (presumed self-published), and current 4th edition was published by Lake Superior Agate Inc. in 2008 as ISBN 978-160250232 (presumed self-published).
 * [Independently published, I think, but not certain]
 * This book is cited in three peer-reviewed journals, and publications by the Federal Highway Administration and one or two state transportation departments.
 * [SELF-PUBLISHED, I think]
 * [SELF–PUBLISHED, I think] (Also cited as first published in 2005, from Outernet Publishing, LLC, in Eden Prairie, MN).
 * [SELF-PUBLISHED, I think]
 * [Independently published, I think]
 * [SELF–PUBLISHED, I think]

Articles by Wolter in Ancient American, a non–peer–reviewed magazine focused primarily on research of pre-Columbian contact between the Old World and North America, which is generally at odds with mainstream scientific opinion (i.e. primarily “fringe”):
 * (A later version appeared in Epigraphic Society Occasoinal Papers, 26:1 (2010)).

Other minor works by Wolter:
 * Wolter, Scott F.; Stehly, Richard D. (1993). "Deicer Distress Investigation, Madison, Wisconsin." Report to the State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation, American Engineering Testing, APS Job 92-9250.
 * Sounds like an absolutely routine report, but it is cited in a peer–reviewed journal:


 * Wolter, Scott F. (2002). "Photo-Library of the Kensington Rune Stone Inscription." CD for Rune Stone Museum: Alexandria, Minnesota.


 * Included in conference proceedings as part of Structures Congress 2006: Structural Engineering and Public Safety (PDF).
 * Included in conference proceedings as part of Structures Congress 2006: Structural Engineering and Public Safety (PDF).

Books that cite Wolter's work:
 * Scholarly book contains papers by different academic authors in each chapter. Chapter 3 entitled “Unusual or ‘extreme’ beliefs about the past, community identity, and dealing with the fringe” by Purdue archaeology professor Larry Zimmerman discusses the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS) as a backdrop to issues related to scientific controversy. It includes extensive discussion of Wolter and his KRS research throughout. The author is acquainted with Wolter, and Wolter is included in the acknowledgments as having commented on the manuscript.
 * Scholarly book contains papers by different academic authors in each chapter. Chapter 3 entitled “Unusual or ‘extreme’ beliefs about the past, community identity, and dealing with the fringe” by Purdue archaeology professor Larry Zimmerman discusses the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS) as a backdrop to issues related to scientific controversy. It includes extensive discussion of Wolter and his KRS research throughout. The author is acquainted with Wolter, and Wolter is included in the acknowledgments as having commented on the manuscript.


 * Scholarly book that discusses Wolter's Kensington Rune Stone research and book extensively and (rather surprisingly) sympathetically. Dr. Kehoe is a widely published, Harvard-educated anthropologist and professor emerita in archaeology at Marquette University. She wrote the forward to Nielsen & Wolter's KRS book. Kehoe and this book were also included in Dr. Zimmerman's discussion (see above), and is extensively discussed in a lengthy review by research archaeologist Dr. Birgitta Wallace in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology.
 * Scholarly book that discusses Wolter's Kensington Rune Stone research and book extensively and (rather surprisingly) sympathetically. Dr. Kehoe is a widely published, Harvard-educated anthropologist and professor emerita in archaeology at Marquette University. She wrote the forward to Nielsen & Wolter's KRS book. Kehoe and this book were also included in Dr. Zimmerman's discussion (see above), and is extensively discussed in a lengthy review by research archaeologist Dr. Birgitta Wallace in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology.


 * Another scholarly book by Kehoe that discusses the KRS, and cites Nielsen & Wolter's book.
 * Another scholarly book by Kehoe that discusses the KRS, and cites Nielsen & Wolter's book.


 * Scholarly book that includes about a page discussing Wolter's research. It is critical of Wolter's KRS work, stating that in spite of Dr. Kehoe, “most archaeologists remain unimpressed” by the research in Wolters & Nielsen's Kensington runestone book, and summarizes Zimmerman's criticisms, saying that Wolter's “technique of dating inscriptions via mica weathering and surface alteration has never been published in a peer–reviewed journal, so it has not been evaluated by independent sources.” It cites a few of Wolters' books and a 2005 APS company report titled “Petrographic Analysis of Rock”.
 * Scholarly book that includes about a page discussing Wolter's research. It is critical of Wolter's KRS work, stating that in spite of Dr. Kehoe, “most archaeologists remain unimpressed” by the research in Wolters & Nielsen's Kensington runestone book, and summarizes Zimmerman's criticisms, saying that Wolter's “technique of dating inscriptions via mica weathering and surface alteration has never been published in a peer–reviewed journal, so it has not been evaluated by independent sources.” It cites a few of Wolters' books and a 2005 APS company report titled “Petrographic Analysis of Rock”.


 * Scholarly book cites Nieslsen/Wolter's Kensington Rune Stone book among “works consulted” (no preview, so the context isn't clear).
 * Scholarly book cites Nieslsen/Wolter's Kensington Rune Stone book among “works consulted” (no preview, so the context isn't clear).


 * Fringe/pop-science book; it contains several references to Wolter, and cites some of his writings.
 * Fringe/pop-science book; it contains several references to Wolter, and cites some of his writings.


 * Fringe/pop-science book; cite's Wolter's The Hooked X.
 * Fringe/pop-science book; cite's Wolter's The Hooked X.

Other books that discuss Wolter or his books:


 * Includes Wolter's The Lake Superior Agate as “highly recommended” in a paragraph listing six books on additional sources of information on “agates and erratics”.
 * Includes Wolter's The Lake Superior Agate as “highly recommended” in a paragraph listing six books on additional sources of information on “agates and erratics”.


 * Includes Wolter's The Lake Superior Agate among a “Recommended Reading” list of nearly 30 books and magazines about agates and other geological topics.
 * Includes Wolter's The Lake Superior Agate among a “Recommended Reading” list of nearly 30 books and magazines about agates and other geological topics.


 * Scholarly work, briefly mentions Wolter's 1998–2000 work and partnership purchasing in a Minnesota rock quarry, and credits a fish fossil photo used in the book to Wolter.
 * Scholarly work, briefly mentions Wolter's 1998–2000 work and partnership purchasing in a Minnesota rock quarry, and credits a fish fossil photo used in the book to Wolter.


 * Scholarly work, briefly discribes Wolter's work on the KRS, and work on a second, later–confirmed hoax rune stone planted near the original KRS site, citing a 2001 Star Tribune article. (Topic also covered in Archaeology's 2002 account).
 * Scholarly work, briefly discribes Wolter's work on the KRS, and work on a second, later–confirmed hoax rune stone planted near the original KRS site, citing a 2001 Star Tribune article. (Topic also covered in Archaeology's 2002 account).


 * Fictional novel, but in a “Writers Notes” section recommends Wolter's The Hooked X as a good source of information on the mystery of the symbol.
 * Fictional novel, but in a “Writers Notes” section recommends Wolter's The Hooked X as a good source of information on the mystery of the symbol.


 * Briefly discusses Wolter's research of runestones, and cites The Hooked X and Holy Grail in America.
 * Briefly discusses Wolter's research of runestones, and cites The Hooked X and Holy Grail in America.


 * Seems non-scholarly; not sure. Briefly mentions Wolter and Hanson's study of the mineral composition of the KRS and their announced tentative findings.
 * Seems non-scholarly; not sure. Briefly mentions Wolter and Hanson's study of the mineral composition of the KRS and their announced tentative findings.


 * Fringe science book, mentions Wolter's work on the KRS.
 * Fringe science book, mentions Wolter's work on the KRS.

Periodical articles that discuss Wolter and his work:
 * Article about Wolter and his interests and work in geology since his college days.
 * Includes about five paragraphs about Wolter's work and comments on a fake runestone planted near Kensington Runestone Park.
 * Single paragraph mention of Wolter's involvement in testing a fake runestone planted near Kensington Runestone Park.
 * Scholarly, detailed 7–page review of Kehoe's book; review discuss Nielsen & Wolter's work on the KRS, and the review cites their KRS book.
 * The author, Nielsen, co-authored the KRS book with Wolter; article includes extensive discussion of their work and some of Wolter's preceding work.
 * Williams, Henrik. "Recension av Scott F. Wolter. The Hooked X: Key to the Secret History of North America." ESOP. The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers 27 (2009): 139-143.
 * Book review of Wolter's The Hooked X.
 * Article about the documentary Holy Grail in America, which features Wolter; article includes information about Wolter.
 * Article about Wolter's background and the documentary Holy Grail in America.
 * Article about Wolter, his theories, and his then-new book The Hooked X.
 * Review of Holy Grail in America which features Wolter. (Link is to abstract of review only).
 * Article about the Narragansett rune stone's theft; includes mention of some of Wolter's work, and discusses his take on the theft.
 * Article about America Unearthed episode on Helena, Montana's Grand Masonic Lodge, including mentions of Wolter and some of his other work.
 * Article about Wolter, his work, and America Unearthed.
 * Article about Wolter and his work on America Unearthed in Newport.
 * Short article about Wolter and his work on America Unearthed.
 * Article about the Narragansett Rune Stone that, with considerable discussion of Wolter and his work.
 * Short written article that includes video, about Wolter and America Unearthed.
 * Review of Holy Grail in America which features Wolter. (Link is to abstract of review only).
 * Article about the Narragansett rune stone's theft; includes mention of some of Wolter's work, and discusses his take on the theft.
 * Article about America Unearthed episode on Helena, Montana's Grand Masonic Lodge, including mentions of Wolter and some of his other work.
 * Article about Wolter, his work, and America Unearthed.
 * Article about Wolter and his work on America Unearthed in Newport.
 * Short article about Wolter and his work on America Unearthed.
 * Article about the Narragansett Rune Stone that, with considerable discussion of Wolter and his work.
 * Short written article that includes video, about Wolter and America Unearthed.
 * Article about Wolter and his work on America Unearthed in Newport.
 * Short article about Wolter and his work on America Unearthed.
 * Article about the Narragansett Rune Stone that, with considerable discussion of Wolter and his work.
 * Short written article that includes video, about Wolter and America Unearthed.
 * Article about the Narragansett Rune Stone that, with considerable discussion of Wolter and his work.
 * Short written article that includes video, about Wolter and America Unearthed.
 * Short written article that includes video, about Wolter and America Unearthed.
 * Short written article that includes video, about Wolter and America Unearthed.

Other:
 * The University of North Dakota's Department of Special Collections maintains two boxes of documents in their Kensington Rune Stone Collection, including several related to Wolter or his work:
 * Folder 55: Grand Forks Herald Interview with Scott Wolter, a geologist who has written several books about the Kensington Rune Stone: January 13, 2007
 * Folder 56: Scandinavian interview with Scott Wolter: Winter 2008
 * Folder 59: "Comments on Scott Wolter's Report on the Kensington Stone, Dated 2003.10.18." Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers."  v27, 2009
 * Folder 63: Scott Wolter. "Peer Review of Richard Nielsen's 'Weathering Ground-line,' 'Grail Prayer,' and 'Dotted R' Papers in ESOP #27." May 21, 2010

Video featuring Wolter:
 * 70 minute documentary, features Wolter for several minutes of explanation.
 * 120 minute documentary, premiered on History Channel/H2, features Wolter for several minutes of explanation.
 * Television series, airs on History Channel/H2; Wolter is sole host of the program, featured nearly continuously through most episodes. 25 episodes so far, hour–long (with commercials).
 * 120 minute documentary, premiered on History Channel/H2, features Wolter for several minutes of explanation.
 * Television series, airs on History Channel/H2; Wolter is sole host of the program, featured nearly continuously through most episodes. 25 episodes so far, hour–long (with commercials).
 * Television series, airs on History Channel/H2; Wolter is sole host of the program, featured nearly continuously through most episodes. 25 episodes so far, hour–long (with commercials).

––Agyle (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. GS search for "S F Wolter" shows negligible cites. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Xxanthippe, WP:PROF is intended to judge notability of professors or others in academia, and while it's true the subject doesn't meet those criteria, I would consider WP:CREATIVE; the subject has never been a professor, and is best known as an author and television host. ––Agyle (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:ACADEMIC clearly doesn't apply (he works outside academia, and has never published in peer-reviewed journals). WP:ENTERTAINER misses criteria (not a significant “fan base”, and not significantly involved in multiple TV shows or notable films. The only area of notability I'd consider is WP:CREATIVE criterion 3: “The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” His research on the KRS and books (KRS & Hooked X) are somewhat well known in the US, even if widely disputed, and formed the basis for the two documentaries and television show he's been a part of, and to some extent Kehoe's KRS book (also widely disputed, as in Wallace 2006 & Zimmerman 2008 – not arguing about the quality of the science!). The periodical citations above include several articles and reviews about all of these works. For some measure of being well known, an America Unearthed episode last month had more than 1 million viewers. ––Agyle (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am getting a big "fringe"/pseudoscience buzz from some of the material I've looked at with respect to this topic in a cursory spin around the Googlesphere. I also note a Wikipediocracy thread noting this subject himself (loudly) requested deletion of a previous iteration of this piece. That said, there are pretty copious hits for the exact name + History channel and I wouldn't be stunned if a few pan out as sources counting to GNG. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the previous version from what I recall was pretty staunch in placing Wolter's views in the position that they are held by mainstream academia (and yes, you "fringe" spidey sense is correct), and his objections were about that and the fact that his claims were "not presented neutrally". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As an everyday user and no expert, I find this to be a fair assessment of Mr. Woltner. Many of his claims are "out there", but is he crazy or is he far-seeing? In 1914 the average American would find many of today's devices to be unbelievable. In 1814 the average American would have found everything unbelievable and believe you should be confined in a mental asylum. Certainly that would be the case in 1714 and in 1614 you would have been hung as a witch! When I was a child, Columbus was the definite discoverer of the Americas. Today we know differently. I believe in the interest of open-mindedness this entry should stay. Who knows what information could be found in even the next 12 months that would prove one of Mr. Woltner's claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindydintn (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed; Wolter has done uncontroversial work and writings too, but his fame is from his fringe writing & theories, and America Unearthed, which covers a wide range of fringe topics. His geological analysis of the KSR could be called disputed/bad science, but combined with more fanciful theories pushed him deep into fringe. However, I think that's irrelevant toward notability; whether Wolter is right or wrong, fringe or mainstream, WP:N and WP:CREATIVE criteria are the same, and nobody's voted to keep the article yet. If he receives more significant coverage in the future, gets another TV show, or writes a best–selling book, his notability can be reassessed at that time. ––Agyle (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * as an encyclopedia (and not a time machine collective), you are correct that we do not know what might happen in 12 months from now, (we even have a policy about it!). And because we know we do not know what tomorrow might bring, we present article content as reflecting the best mainstream academic thought as it is known and believed today. see the various subsections following WP:UNDUE for more details. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know we like to judge for content, but if there is a Flat Earth Society page or Giorgio A. Tsoukalos page, I am not sure why there would not be a Scott Wolter page unless the criteria to having one is to be radically wrong or radically right and everyone in between is left out. I suspect Wolter's page was created primarily as an attack page. If the attacks cannot be policed then it should be deleted. However, the entire reason people trust Wikipedia is to get a neutral and factual assessment about a thing or person such as Scott Wolter, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos or the Flat Earth Society without being a forum for gossip and belittlement. Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia not the academic's encyclopedia and discoveries are not only reserved for academics. Religion for one is probably not an academic topic nor mainstream, and yet it still finds its way on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should cover all matters equally whether we agree a point of view or not. If mainstream thought is the only thoughts that should be represented on wiki, then we have a lot of pages to delete. Questioning the mainstream thought is the exact process of science. Without it, we would still be living in the dark ages. The Scott Wolters of the world should not be discouraged but encouraged. Whether they come up empty handed or not is another issue entirely. We should be careful not to instill fear in discovery by coming up empty handed. Star Trek inspired a whole generation of engineers which are badly lacking today as these baby-boomers retire. Star Trek in its day it was probably viewed as the worst kind of B-movie with scantily clad women, but if it has the potential to inspire a generation of engineers or geologists as in Wolter's case, to answer the questions raised by the show, then why should we stand in the way. 74.109.46.107 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fringe people who are covered in non-fringe sources are notable per WP:FRINGE. -- Green  C  17:22, 15 February 2014 (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.