Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome

Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome

Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 [1] 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 [2] 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 [3] 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[4] or his forthcoming book, The Wandlebury Enigma[5] 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)