Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom time hypothesis

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As his claim is so radically opposed to the sciences of archaeology, dating, etc., it is incumbent upon Heribert to prove that his claims are more than disatisfaction with current dating methods and supposed radical innacuracies of medieval scribes. This is Heribert's only claim to fame, his only reason for inclusion in the Wikipedia. As such, is it enough to actually justify any page on him? I think not and have thus nominated this thoroughly implausible theory for deletion. Banaticus 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep. the theory is bunk, of course, but bunk of sufficient notability. See the German version. dab (ᛏ) 08:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep, notable theory. we don't delete articles on theories based on their plausibility. bogdan 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into Heribert Illig and re-direct (or disambig). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as bunk, but quite notable bunk. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into Heribert Illig. There is already significant duplication between the two articles. -- Stbalbach 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and put in pseudoscience category. It's notable enough to be mentioned. LHOON 12:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already in Pseudoarchaeology and Pseudohistory categories, which are subcategories of Pseudoscience category. bogdan 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German version might be notable. But the books haven't been translated into English and the theories are completely ridiculous. If this were the German Wikipedia, then it might be notable enough to keep. But 1) the theory is just plain stupid and 2) is not notable in English -- it thus should not be on the English Wikipedia. If the German Wikipedia editors feel that it's notable enough to host over there, more power to them. Additionally, relevant information from this article has already been merged with that on Heribert. This particular article should be deleted. Banaticus 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just because the sources are in German doesn't make it not notable or not verifiable. "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." (from WP:V) --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Illig published the books himself (according to the German Wikipedia Heribert Illig discussion page). Maelnuneb, the same page that you quoted begins with the statment, "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." (Their emphasis, not mine.) The source of these crank allegations is not a reputable publisher. Banaticus 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nutty but published independently: see Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 8/4 (1997) where Illig got his moment of fame. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should follow the link I gave to the German Wikipedia and inform them of that, Angus McLellan. By the way, the link you gave appears to essentially be a syllabus -- I didn't see anything on that page which contradicts the German Wikipedia's assertion that Heribert published this himself. Banaticus 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editorial board of EWE (as it is now called) doesn't include Illig: Loh, for example, is a Professor of Sociology at Paderborn, Keil-Slawik of Computing & Society. The journal has been published for 14+ years. One issue had some material on Illig, largely rebuttals of his work. And yes, the link is to a table of contents. The printed journals are issued by the academic publishers Lucius & Lucius. Everything seems quite above board. Illig has been published in a reliable source, but his ravings were rejected and probably, going by the table of contents, on the grounds that the WP article gives: the need for massive and highly improbable cross-cultural collusion (Gunnar Heinsohn: Armenier und Juden als Testfall für die Streichung von drei Jahrhunderten durch Heribert Illig) and on astronomical grounds (Wolfhard Schlosser: Astronomie und Chronologie). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Patent nonsense. Or merge with Omphalos theory which says the world could have been created 2 minutes ago.Edison 20:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. There is significant overlap. Just because a theory is garbage does not automatically mean it is not encyclopedic. The vast majority of theologians say The Jesus Seminar are a bunch of jerks, and there are still some Flat Earthers around. RickReinckens 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those examples have achieved public recognition and notability in English, which this article hasn't. Banaticus 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very notable information for everyone who looks at the world with questions. The subject concerned, the middle or 'dark' ages, is indeed a very questionable period. Also a reminder that history has more to do with politics then math. Every history scholar can tell you there is no singular correct version of history, it comes from different sources. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustinBeck.
• Keep, from the point of view of History of Architecture this could well be true. -- Petri Krohn 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.