Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 03:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails our criteria for notability. This is part of a long-standing dispute over the work of Christian O'Brien who is notable because of his work as Chairman and General Manager of the  Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP} but was also a minor fringe writer whose fringe writings now dominate his biography and have been and in this case are being promoted through Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep This early section of O'Brien's work has had peer review and was featured in The Sunday Telegraph Magazine in March 1978 and also the Fortean Times 2006. I'd consider it meets criteria for notability with these sources. The remains of the Loxodrome are also part of the landscape, so should not be deleted so easily. They are there and I've tried to give this article and unbiased approach with the academic comments available, not really promoting anymore. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentThe Fortean Times does not 'feature' it, indeed it doesn't even mention anything by this name but simply says "In the late 1970s, it was claimed by researcher Tim O'Brien, following up a theory put forward by Alfred Watkins, that, prior to the construction of the fort, the site was used as a lunar and solar observatory, an idea that has gained little credence since." I haven't been able to find a Sunday Telegraph article unless you are saying that the link is actually a a (almost certainly copyvio and thus I doubt that we should have a link to it) copy of the article, but there's nothing on that page saying so.  I can see that the page that links to it does, but there is no specific date and no author. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)#
 * Comment No problem! If the veracity of the Sunday Telegraph Article is the problem, I will chase this up and provide a date and author as soon as possible. Thanks! Paul Bedson (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Have found the primary source's author and updated. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Am going to give Barbara Joy O'Brien a call tomorrow to see if she's kept an original copy for the date. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep if sourcing can be improved. If not I will reverse my recommendation. It may be fringey but might be notable fringey. Having said that, the sources supplied so far look pretty dotty, so much improvement is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Merge to Christian O'Brien. This can be notable as a fringe theory if there is substantial coverage in reliable sources (even if the theory is completely debunked), but the Fourtean Times cannot possibly be considered a reliable source, which leaves only one article in the magazine section of a paper, which isn't substantial. If more coverage is found, I might change to keep, but if so, the lead paragraph needs to make it clear this is a disputed theory. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Have changed the lead sentence to clarify it as a 'suggested theory'. Paul Bedson (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Fortean Times is a reliable source for fringe material though not, of course, for mainstream science material. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment I have spoken to O'Brien's widow, who has a copy of the primary source and updated with the Sunday Telegraph issue number, date and author now. Hope this will help secure the keep vote! Paul Bedson (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this anything more than evidence that the paper was sent to the journal and the journal noted its existence? Also, the Fortean Times mention, reliable or not, is too short to be proof of notability. What we have is the Sunday Telegraph and Colin Wilson (another fringe writer). Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment And I was hoping you would remove the copyvio link to your website. That can't stay. I note that the article does not say that astronomers expressed awe despite your claim that it does. It quotes one astronomer saying "“The conclusions are so astounding that one immediately has to step back, look again, and ask, ‘Can this really be so?’ Had he written this paper 20 years ago, people would have laughed at it, but recent studies have revealed a picture of an elite in Britain who seem to have run the country." My problem is that as this is a newspaper article, that is a selected quote and we don't know what else Roy said. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough, I've rephrased that accordingly. Regarding the copyvio, I have asked the webmaster of that website to include the full title, source, author and date on the page to improve it as a source (it is not my website! Wikipedia is my website ;-) ), whether that's acceptable, I'll take your guidance on what's best, can post it on a non-commercial site if needed or move it to an external link? Also added another source for the Wandlebury Enigma. Haven't added other fringey sources like Hugh Newman's World News Video or his forthcoming book, The Wandlebury Enigma due for release at Megalithomania later this March, 2011. There's some nice local info in these, but the emphasis on Earth Energies - NOT the type of fringey this article needs, but can add if they carry further weight to show notability. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Changing it to 'astronomers' being astounded doesn't help either, as the article doesn't make that claim. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Have rephrased again accordingly. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question You've cited Paul Newman and Darvill's book (by the way, you need to put page numbers in for book citations). Exactly what do they say in chapter 8 about O'Brien's loxodrome? Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer I've just ordered a copy and will let you know. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In other words, you've used a book as a citation without having read it. That's pretty bad. And you could just have asked me as I have the book. The answer is nothing. Newman, who now writes as Hugh Newman and is an O'Brien fan, hadn't read O'Brien at that point and the chapter doesn't discuss anything like a straight line, just Lethbridge and hill-figures. A different 'enigma'. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That whole question was entrapment then! That's pretty bad too. ;-) I'll remove the source if it's definitely not featured in the 2009 edition. Fascinating stuff about Paul/Hugh, I'm looking forward to getting the book. Hill figures are more my sort of thing that Teleuric Energies. Will be interesting to see his new book and if O'Brien features, but will probably be self-published, we'll see. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Christian O'Brien per lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Latter article also needs expansion on other aspects. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Huh? Did you miss the in-depth coverage in a major, reliable U.K. newspaper there?
 * Delete no substantial coverage need more sources to prove notability even as a  fringe one The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge ...into the landscape. I've created the Leper Stone and Portingbury Hills, which like the fairy mounds of Ireland that folklore guesses O'Brien's Tuatha De Danann faded off into, I hope those sites will retain some whisper of what went on here... Paul Bedson (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question What do you mean 'merge' or was that rhetorical? Or do you mean that if this article survives AfD, the others, which seem to be created to push O'Brien's idea, should be merged with them? Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer I mean I've changed my vote. After consideration and developments from this discussion, I'd now recommend an entirely new page called the Wandlebury Enigma dealing with both O'Brien's and Newman/Darvill's theories this would give it more substantial sourcing. Edmund Marriage has contacted David Hoppitt, who is still writing. All this has initiated discussions about another article and if Hugh Newman's forthcoming book is called the Wandlebury Enigma I'd say sourcing is substantial enough to support such a re-name. The Leper Stone and Portingbury Hills pages could then be tidied to avoid repetition. Let me know what you think? You'd have to write the Newman/Darvill part because my book hasn't arrived yet. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient sourcing to show notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Wandlebury Enigma Suggestion
I'm happy to rename and revise this to accomodate a substantial extra source in the Newman/Darvil book and better naming convention. The more hill figures, the merrier the enigma. I want to get this correct though and I can see all sorts of problems, from the fact that I am not quite sure whether the loxodrome line actually hits Portingbury Hills but through what O'Brien called Portingbury Warren Circle, which I think the sources may be referring to as another circle coming out of the lake nearby in Hatfield Forest. I'm not really sure about this and am going to have to go there sometime in the Summer to figure out which enlosure links to which zig-zag bank. The problem seems to have been caused by the Wikipedia page about Little Hallingbury (NOT created by me!) being a direct copyvio transcription from David Hoppit's "Wandlebury Enigma" Sunday Telegraph Article!!! Some resident from Little Hallingbury perhaps has considered my source substantial enough it would seem to directly quote the existence of their village by it. I'll agree to tidy that page up to sweeten the deal. Paul Bedson (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Yaksar (let's chat) 22:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Wandlebury Enigma. My book has turned up and I have re-written this with substantial sourcing, now covering Thomas Lethbridge's investigations into the hill figures around the Astronomical Complex. Hope this marks the end of the Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome - it was as bad, unsourced name that Doug was 100% correct to question here. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:45, 8 March 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.