Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood


 * 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 Keep - consensus is that while it may be about a junk theory, it is notable and needs cleaning up rather than deleting. Yomangani talk 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Where Troy Once Stood
Please see the debate on Talk:Odyssey about whether or not this book meets notability requirements. I am nominating it for that reason. Also, note that Anthony Snodgrass, a well respected arechologist and Homeric historian refered to this book as an example of lackluster scholarship and his thesis as 'infinitely less serious' than most things out there, which scholars don't even think is worth the time to refute. text here. I, for my part, will remain Neutral right now until I see and participate in some discussion. CaveatLectorTalk 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose deletion. Wikipedia has articles about lots of books, only some of which are scholarly. You might as well delete the article on The Da Vinci Code, about which the same statements, attributed to Snodgrass above, could be made. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose. I believe this is a notable article, which should be in WP. Antiphus 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I weakly oppose deletion. It not the greatest book by any stretch, but it appears to be significant enough - a couple hundred copies listed in WorldCat, some citations of the title by other authors, not self published, published in a couple languages and countries, etc. That said, there are plenty of other, better books that deserve to have the same amount of time spent on them. cbustapeck 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the book seems to be the exponent of an interesting albeit very minority view. Rich Farmbrough, 20:28 8  October 2006 (GMT).
 * I oppose deletion of any article on a book that presents a well-rounded Wikipedia article, simply because it is not considered up to academic standards. Andrew Salby's reference to The Da Vinci Code is apropos. With this setting a precedent, many references might be suppressed to books whose conclusions are not liked. --Wetman 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP: weak deletion reason. See WP:N. Feureau 21:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The criterion that seems to me to apply: is anyone likely to want to refer to such a page? In this case, yes, the page serves an adequate reference function. Charles Matthews 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the article needs work, in that it ought to be very clear to one who reads it just how outside the pale of respectable academic theorizing about this subject this particular theory is. Still, one might say the same about the theories in the books of Eric Von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, and lots of other notable authors. --Christofurio 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked through the few undred Google hits and could not find a single reliable source for an article. Amazon sales rank is over the million mark, there is no evidence of the significance of this book and there is no obvious secondary source for the article itself - I am unable to verify the neutrality of this article from independent secondary sources of any evident authority. Guy 22:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then please ask for verifiable sources to be provided before you vote delete. Just because you cn't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist. It is verifiable that the book exists, thus the argument should be over how best to clean up the article. Please, consider cleaning up before automatically reaching for the delete button. Carcharoth 12:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep--as I say elsewhere, WP has a fairly low threshold for notability, and the fact that this book commands high prices on the used book market (see here, for instance) indicates that people are interested in it. As mentioned above by Christofurio, the article must indicate just how far out of the mainstream Wilkens' theories are. As an additional comment, the article Iman Wilkens contains almost no information that's not in Where Troy Once Stood, and if there's an article to delete here, it might be Iman Wilkens. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Guy. Valrith 23:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Potty, but notable, just about. Naturenet | Talk 07:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the mainstream point-of-view needs to be added, but this is a verifiable article about an interesting topic. Carcharoth 12:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG. Interesting is not a synonym for encyclopedic. A non-stub article on a non-notable work of tinfoil hat pseudhistory/pseudoarchaeology is undue weight if criticisms are not included, and if nobody bothered to criticise the book that tells its own story. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding Deletion policy. There is nothing there that says an article lacking NPOV must be deleted. Please see WP:DEL, in particular: "Article is biased or has lots of POV; List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention; tag with or . Please limit your arguments to whether the existence of the theory is verifiable, and whether the theory is notable enough for inclusion. The existence of the theory is not in question, and the length of time the theory has been around for, and the amount written on it, makes it notable. People will come here looking for an article on this, and we should be able to provided them with such an article. Carcharoth 14:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is no criticism, that implies the non-notability of the book. The inability to write WP:NPOV articles in the absence of multiple independent reports is why WP:V is a core requirement. One could argue that a stub article would be NPOV (in making no claims beyond the trivial ones of the book's existence, authorship, &c), but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of bibliographical cruft, so that wouldn't be an improvement. For books to have articles they have to be notable ... but we've been here already. There's no way an article on this book can meet the core requirements, whatever a proposed guideline like WP:BK might say. Notability isn't determined by ISBNs, or being included in a few libraries, but by being written about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CaveatLector's initial post refers to an article by Anthony Snodgrass that includes criticism of Wilkens. To be honest, one of the reasons why I'd like to keep this article is because every few months new editors come on to articles like Troy or Odyssey trying to add in Wilkens' theories. If we have this article to point to, and it contains Snodgrass' criticism, it's much easier to say that WP already contains sufficient material on Wilkens. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But that simply begs the question "should Wikipedia include information on Wilkens", to which my answer is "no". Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting to see the redlink there. Actually, Snodgrass helps to make Wilkens notable, simply by speaking against the Cailleux-Wilkens theory. So who's going to write the article on Snodgrass? He's more notable. Andrew Dalby 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose deletion. At one point or another in history Schliemann and even Homer himself would have been "deleted". Snodgrass too... political correctness knows no bounds... I expect Prof. Snodgrass himself would be horrified by the idea of censoring Wilkens: not of criticizing him, certainly, or of dismissing his ideas -- but the notion of removing the ideas of Wilkens or any other non-conformist, "nut" or otherwise, so that they might not even be read, if only to be dismissed, runs against the grain of the Western free-thinking tradition of which both Homer and now Snodgrass himself are parts. I've just read Wilkens' book, myself: greatly entertained, if not convinced -- it has motivated me to re-read Snodgrass. Paraphrasing a now-very-old online debate (kudos to Steve Cisler): "And first they came for Wilkens..." --Kessler 17:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is slightly alarmist. If this article is deleted, I doubt the Wikipedia police will show up on Wilkens' doorstep and drag him off for reeducation. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not alarmist at all. Feel free to doubt if you insist, Akhilleus, but if you and others wade in and censor views here with which you don't personally agree, Wikipedia will turn into just another "political correctness" vehicle, manipulated news of the type we see too often nowadays in Big Media, and in the history textbooks in Japan. So I believe we should let Wilkens have his say, even if some of us don't agree with him. --Kessler 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Akhilleus, he has voted to keep the article! Andrew Dalby 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So noted. Just editorializing on his editorializing. :-) --Kessler 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is our job to summarize the significant published viewpoints--whether or not those viewpoints would get us an A on a classics exam, is that not right?  The reviewers advising librarians say this book presents a compelling argument, even as they note that this book should be bought only by large libraries.  --Rednblu 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What reviews are you talking about? I have been able to turn up anything from a reputable publication except the Snodgrass piece already mentioned. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I paraphrased and cited the Library Journal review that I found in the article, Sir. --Rednblu 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't found that article, even though I've been looking for reviews of Wilkens. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

. Others have written about it with a more sympathetic tone but the overwhelming opinion from respected archeologists is that Wilkens' theory is easily debunked. Still it has some sort of cult following and this is exactly what the article should discuss. That being said, it probably falls somewhat short of WP:BK but not dramatically so either.Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Better to clean up the article than to remove it entire. Jcfiala 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The book is junk, yes, but I think it's notable junk. One, arguably not so reliable source, mentions it as a highly sought after book. There's a review apparently here . Anyways, I distinctly remember that theory being mentioned at the time the book was published. Some respected people have taken the time to explain how unreasonnable the theory is
 * Delete The editors above are focusing on the quality of the book. The issue here is not quality but notability. We have proposed guidelines for the notability of books at WP:BK. In order to be notable a book really needs to generate interest outside of its own field - yet this book generates only about 600 google hits very few citation from Google scholar, is in only about 300 libraries out of 10,000+ in woldcat . The only review cited by the article is from Library Journal, a publication which reviews thousands of books a year with very limited regard for notability and is specifically disqualified from establishing notability per WP:BK. There is no evidence so far that this book has been the subject of significant works in publications serving a general audience as required by WP:BK. GabrielF 16:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * This request for deletion comes from someone who openly declared that he might "pick up the book from my library at my next convienence and page through it." CaveatLectorTalk 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC), and then, eleven days later, when I asked: Did you manage to get a copy? Antiphus 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC), stated: "I, unfortunately, did not find the time".CaveatLectorTalk... Antiphus 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. We should be arguing about the books notability rather than the correctness or otherwise of it claims. It generates 718 Google hits and all editions rank about 1,000,000 in sales on Amazon (the first edition is of course much lower than the new one). Does this qualify as notable? --Cúchullain t/ c 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Just about notable, I think, though the article wants improvement. WTOS is certainly the handiest current reference on the theory concerned, which has been running for more than a century. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be a great deal of meatpuppetry going on here. Check the talk pages of the "oppose" voters: many have a comment in their talk page telling them to vote here, and if you check the talk page of the person who made the comment, in some cases they also have a comment on their talk page of the same sort. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  00:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you look at Talk:Odyssey, you'll also see that many of the editors commenting here have recently discussed whether Wilkens' book is a reliable source, so it's pretty natural for them to be interested in this AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a meatpuppet, I'm a person (I think). I am not in favour of Wilkens' theory, not by several light years, but I believe Wikipedia readers need references on such material. I advised one other user to vote because I know of his interest in the subject. I don't suppose he even knows what a meatpuppet is. Since he asked me how voting was done, I told him, and said he could recommend others to vote so long as he didn't push them one way. (See my posting on his user page here.) I was right, wasn't I? Andrew Dalby 08:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to point out to Antiphus that I have not made a REQUEST for deletion, I have merely listed this page in AfD because the book's notability seemed questionable. I still remain neutral on this vote.  I'm not sure how those quotes from my talk page are relavent. CaveatLectorTalk 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The quotes from your talk page are relevant because they show how this book is treated. You have listed the article in AfD without having read the book! Antiphus 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: canvassing for people to comment here is, in my opinion, extremely bad form. And Andrew Dalby, please read WP:SOCK for the definition of "Meat puppet". --Storkk 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is debatable. It depends on whether the vote should be made up of AfD regulars, people who have the article on their watchlist, people who are interested in the subject (some WikiProjects are organised enough that they have pages acting as group watchlists so they can contribute to deletion discussions for pages edited by their WikiProject), people who are expert in the subject (probably need someone to ask them to contribute), random passers-by, other random groups of people rounded up and herded over here to vote. I think if you know of someone you know would want to contribute to the debate, then telling them about it is OK. Of course, it would help the closing admin if everyone voting admitted their interest, and revealed how they found out about the debate, but that is never going to happen, is it? Carcharoth 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Storkk. I'm certainly not one of those, thank goodness, and don't ever want to be one. Personally, I doubt if any of the others who have voted on this page could be described as such. Andrew Dalby 15:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * created Iman Wilkens and Where Troy Once Stood, created a few other articles that contain Wilkens-related material (e.g. Myrina, Queen and Stuntney), and placed Wilkens-related text in many articles (most of which are locations in East Cambridgeshire). It would have been rude, I think, to have this AfD and not let him know about it. Similarly, this AfD follows upon a discussion at Talk:Odyssey about whether Wilkens is a reliable source, which many of the commenters here participated in; obviously, people who participated in that discussion have an interest in this one. CaveatLector referred to this discussion in the initial post of the AfD, so it's not as if any of this is a secret. Furthermore, CaveatLector, Andrew Dalby, and myself are members of the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, so this discussion is of obvious interest to us. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. :-) If we are being all nice and open, I am a genuine passer-by, popping in to AfD to see what things are like at the moment. I prefer to see articles cleaned-up and improved, rather than deleted, and if an article seems OK and doesn't immediately set warning bells ringing, I'm happy to see it stay. Carcharoth 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment How about a "Disputed" template, for this case? That doesn't require deletion or correction, as I understand it, but simply notes disagreement on article substance and directs readers to the article's Talk page for discussion & debate. Seems to me that might be the healthiest solution, here: using Wilkens' far-out ideas perhaps to shore up but at least to question received opinion -- nothing worse than the latter unquestioned. The "Disputed" label, at the top, might attract attention but at least would alert the truly innocent. --Kessler 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The full "Disputed" template label reads: "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed. / Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." -- sounds fair to me, for this instance -- helps engender reasonable discussion & debate, good things. --Kessler 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I check out Afds every once in awhile for fun, because there's often an interesting dispute like this one to be found, and I end up reading articles (and learning about non-mainstream theories) I might never otherwise have encountered. I have told one other member about this one -- not because I knew how he would vote, but frankly because I was curious about his reaction. He's had none (in fact, I've subsequently discovered he's been inactive for two months). I've also mentioned this article and the Afd on my blog, cfaille.blog-city.com, but doubt that will stir much reaction. --Christofurio 15:04, 11 October 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.