Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry (2nd nomination)

Closing administrator's rationale
If you choose to leave a follow-on comment, please do so in a new section below this one. Please do not interrupt my comments here.

Raw count analysis

 * Keep
 * 1) Little sawyer (29 Edits, including 3 by 194.214.168.50
 * 2) Golgofrinchian
 * 3) DGG (2 Edits)


 * Delete
 * 1) Angusmclellan
 * 2) Kesh (3 Edits)
 * 3) David Eppstein (4 Edits)
 * 4) Arthur Rubin (4 Edits)
 * 5) CRGreathouse (3 Edits)
 * 6) Lambiam (4 Edits)
 * 7) SheffieldSteel
 * 8) JzG (4 Edits, aka "Guy")
 * 9) Pmanderson
 * 10) Tim Ross


 * Non-Participatory
 * 1) SineBot
 * 2) Splash
 * 3) GRBerry
 * 4) TenPoundHammer


 * Non-counted
 * 1) 85.107.0.106 (WP:SPA)

Arguments

 * Delete arguments
 * 1) not sufficient reliably sourced independent material to establish notability
 * 2) all sources seem to include Alan Butler
 * 3) lacks multiple and independent WP:reliable sources


 * discounted delete arguments
 * 1) non-notable
 * 2) already Duly mentioned under Phaistos Disc decipherment claims
 * 3) unsuited to an encyclopedia
 * 4) fringe-theory that has no scientific support
 * 5) sounds more like a persuasive essay attempting to convince us of the validity of this research
 * 6) previous AfD
 * 7) possible hoax
 * 8) theory has math errors
 * 9) fringe/pseudo- science


 * Keep arguments
 * 1) additional sources mentioned (see summary)


 * Discounted keep arguments
 * 1) article does not deal with a one-man theory; seems to involve at least six people
 * 2) Butler is a prolific English writer and a professional writer I think
 * 3)  Weak keep Needs some rework but possibly still is within the WP:N.Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) several people publishing books on it

Summary
This was a difficult closing to perform. Firstly, many of the participants failed to observe the instructions in AFD regarding only one bulleted point per editor, and indentation and placement of follow-on comments. I had to refactor many of the comments here, just to make sense of them.

Secondly, there was alot of banter and chit-chat about things that had nothing to do with the deletion of the article. We discussed perceived weaknesses in the theory itself, including mathematical errors, and we discussed the deletion of articles about some of the authors of source material used in this article. These things only clutter the page.

We do not selectively publish material about theories that we agree with or think make sense or are scientific. We are far too neutral for that. We publish articles that pass WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.

Several sources were mentioned in the discussion that I felt warranted further consideration.
 * The Guardian, Peer review of 'Who Built the Moon?' by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler Paul Nettleton, Thursday September 1 2005
 * The Times (precited)
 * Stone Circles and Megalithic Geometry : An Experiment to Test Alternative Design Practices - Author(s) BARNATT J. ; HERRING P. in Journal of archaeological science ISSN 0305-4403, 1986, vol. 13, no5, Publisher Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1974
 * 'Megalithic geometry' (about Thom) in http://books.google.fr/books?id=MfeOkLyZ9KkC&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=megalithic+geometry&source=web&ots=zhTzM5AvGp&sig=X2_h_s2YSyYVFypJODUxBV9mw7g&hl=fr#PPA370,M1
 * 'Megalithic triangles' (about Thom too), Based on the article by M. Beech, Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 20 (3), 1988.
 * Alexander Thom, "Megalithic Geometry in Standing Stones", New Scientist, March 12, 1964
 * Radio Iciet Mainetnant, interview of Sylvain Tristan "Les Lignes d'Or" - L'Histoire du Monde : des histoires trafiquées ? - (25.07.05) - 5h.mp3, http://icietmaintenant.info/emissions.php?idNouvelle=16
 * 'SacreePlanate' (French magazine), interview of Sylvain Tristan, Aug-Sept. 2007

Having reviewed them, these seem to disprove the delete arguments. They do not only cover a single man's theory, they are reasonably independent of the theory itself, are multiple in number, and come from reliable sources. All other concerns are deemed repairable via the WP:EDIT process. No matter how nutty or flawed we may collectively think this theory is, that is irrelevant to AfD. My decision therefore is keep.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 07:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree
I disagree with the closing admin's decision.

First, I think the article should have been speedy deleted; although focusing less specifically on Silvain Tristan (pseudonym of Sylvain Nicoulaud) than the earlier version, in my opinion it was essentially a recreation of the earlier article, quite possibly created by the same person as before, trying to give credibility to their theory by having an article about it on Wikipedia.

Of the "several sources" listed above:
 * The article in The Times Online is written by Knight and Butler themselves.
 * The article in The Guardian is a book review. Although this series of book reviews is named "Peer review", it is not a peer review in the sense that is common in science: the author is a book reviewer, and not a research scientist, nor is he otherwise an expert in this area.
 * The publications by Thom himself or about his research (which includes every single publication in the list with "megalithic geometry" in its title) all deal with a completely different notion of "megalithic geometry" than the one in the article, a notion that – in contrast to 366-degree geometry – is notable. It has nothing to do with the pseudoscience fringe theory of 366-degree geometry of the article, but deals with main-line archaeological research. After I pointed this out, the article creator added a section on this to the article, which however has no meaningful relationship to the rest of the article, including the lead section.
 * Both Radio Ici & Maintenant! and Sacrée Planète are dedicated to New Age pseudoscience topics, and will pay attention to anything, as long as it is not mainline science, such as decoding Nostradamus, or the theory that the megalithic monuments were built by using levitation. For both sources the content is an interview with Sylvain Tristan.

In summary, of the 8 sources listed:
 * 4 are not about the 366-degree geometry that is the subject of the article, but about something else;
 * 3 are not independent of the originators and evangelists of (versions of) the theory, having been written by them (K&B) or being uncritical interviews with one of them (ST);
 * 1 is a book review.

Of the four that deal with the subject matter of the article, only the last can be considered independent. Do book reviewers qualify as reliable sources?

The uncritical attention paid here to the theory of 366-degree geometry in a devoted article is completely out of proportion to its prominence. There is no parity of sources, and in this case such parity cannot be achieved by adding more critical sources, simply because there aren't any, which is because no attention is being paid to this theory (except by Wikipedia). --Lambiam 15:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Lambiam. The cited references are a walled garden of material by the promoters of the theory, not independent resources. I thought that was clear in the AfD, but apparently not. -- Kesh (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agee with Kesh and Lambian. Ok, so who wants to take this to DRV yet again? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with Lambiam, although some of his comments are quite apt. Yes, the authors (Butler and Tristan) are not what you could call extremely notable, yes, the 'Times' article has been written by Butler and Knight themselves, and yes, both the French radio and French magazine mainly deal with pseudo science. However, I have to stress 8 important points that in my view strongly reinforce the keep decision of the article:
 * 1-Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas are notable, they are the authors of a series of controversial, but world-famous books dealing with the origin of Freemasonry. This is not a scientific book but let me remind you that 'notable' on Wiki terms doesn't necessarily mean scientific. Their book 'The Hiram Key' (http://www.amazon.com/Hiram-Key-Pharaohs-Freemasonry-Discovery/dp/1931412758/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206544491&sr=1-1) has 226 reviews on Amazon.com alone, it is a best-seller, and has been translated into many languages. I want to stress again that apart from Tristan and Butler, these two authors are both advocates of 366-degree geometry (in several books).
 * 2-In my list I forgot another review from another independent source, i.e. the London Daily Mail. It is about "Civilization One", viz. "I'm electrified by it….one of the most important books to be published in decades…..one of the biggest breakthroughs of all time…...a book of central importance ….this is the definitive proof that civilisation is thousands of years older than historians believe." -- Colin Wilson, London Daily Mail (see http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_cknight.htm)
 * 3-The fact that the article is the 'Times' has been written by the authors themselves is not relevant: The Times, by publishing this article, implicitly endorses Butler and Knight's controversial views, it's not as if it had been placed there without them knowing it. Besides, who else than the authors themselves could have better summarized their views without running the risk of making mathematical mistakes in what is the most notable daily paper in Britain?
 * 4-A similar consideration can be made with regard to the Guardian, even if the article is not really in favour of Butler and Knight's views, they considered the subject was important enough to discuss it in their lines. What's more, what the journalist seems to disagree on is not so much 366-degree geometry but rather the end of the book which deals with unlikely time traveling theories (in that case I would strongly agree that these theories are pure, unproven and unprovable pseudo-science indeed!)
 * 5-Again, I have to observe that poor old Xavier Guichard, the one who allegedly discovered Salt Lines in the first place in the 1920's, the one nobody seemed to believe at the time, has been utterly forgotten in our discussions again. Let me restate that he discovered what he thought were alignments on the earth with a 360-degree geometry, but the lines were too close to one another, which is normal if Butler is correct (366 lines instead of 360). And again, Xavier Guichard was notable enough to have an article in the English wiki (not made by yours truly), before all these discussions even began! Poor man, he's the first one who discovered all this and once again he's completely set aside in our discussions, which I am beginning to think is honestly unfair!
 * 6-The fact that Tristan's interviews have been made in specialized media should not hide the fact that at no moment does Tristan use any New Age flim flam to promote his views, such as levitation, extra-terrestrials, and so on.
 * 7-Tristan's publisher, by the way, seems to deal mainly with esoteric or New Age stuff, but it is also the publisher of the French translation of Al Gore's book (http://cgi.ebay.fr/URGENCE-PLANETE-TERRE-%2F-AL-GORE-%2F-Alph%C3%A9e_W0QQitemZ310029863245QQcmdZViewItem), which I think makes it notable too (I agree it's only the publisher that is notable, not the author, but still.)
 * 8-I don't think that Alexander Thom's 'Megalithic geometry' is, as you write, a 'completely different notion' than 366-degree Megalithic geometry. Thom spent most of his life trying to study or prove that the Megalithic people were expert astronomers and expert geometricians. So does Butler. No, he never used number 366 in his work. But yes, he thought the Megalithic people had a geometry (so does Butler), that they used it in their stone circles (so do Butler and Knight and Tristan), and that they used a unit of measurement (the Megalithic Yard) to apply it on the ground (so does Butler who claims the Megalithic Yard is the Megalithic people's unit of measurement and that it is derived from the Earth's polar circumference in the 366-degree ('Megalithic') geometry. And as you say Thom's work is 'notable.' He even had a Wiki article before these discussions began.
 * Now, weighing up the pros and cons and judging from the evidence, I must say I am genuinely surprised there can still be some debates regarding the notability of the subject.--Little sawyer (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim that The Times endorses anything because of their article is ridiculous. As for Colin Wilson, so what? He's another fringe writer, his review means nothing.


 * Megalithic geometry is notable. Most of the content of this article is not. It seems to now being used to justify going around and adding salt lines to every article where salt lines are claimed. Creating an article in order to do this is not justified, but it appears to be what has happened on the Avebury and Ring of Brodgar articles.
 * Salt lines (the Butler type) are not notable. I agree with Lambian, this was a mistake and is now being exploited.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to exploit anything. I thought it was relevant to make an addition to Brodgar because it seems to me particularly striking in their theory (60 stones on the 60th parallel). You can delete it if you think it's too much. Same thing for Avebury (as it has been studied by Thom and that Butler and Tristan use it in their theories). I added photos in 'Megalithic geometry' today to illustrate otherwise the whole thing seems a bit hard to understand I think. And when I said 'endorsed' about The Times, I meant that if they had considered the theory utterly foolish, such a prestigious paper would never have bothered with publishing any article about it.--Little sawyer (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)