Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom time hypothesis (2nd nomination)

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 seems to be: fringey but notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom time hypothesis[edit]

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

This theory is not notable. It is largely the work of one man, and it has been scarcely noticed outside of Germany. As has been discussed on the Talk page, there are very few reliable sources that have taken the time to refute this theory. This is despite the fact that it implies not just that Charlemagne was invented, but also that a large section of European history, such as the history of Anglo-Saxon England, was also fabricated, and that the history of Islamic was drastically misdated etc. Contrast this with the numerous discussions about UFOs, the JFK Assassination etc. I've found no evidence that this theory is part of popular culture. I suspect this page is itself a major contribution to the limited notability of the subject. In the original nomination the issue of notability was largely not discussed. The consensus was that the theory was nonsense, but that this was not grounds for deletion. However, Wikipedia cannot document every unorthodox theory. Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might it be merged with articles on other similar theories such as New Chronology (Fomenko)? --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The German version[1] of this page has an impressive-looking set of references and bibliography, but I've not checked if it's really that great. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a mini-controversy in Germany, but I don't think that a topic that is notable in the German Wikipedia is necessarily notable in the English Wikipedia. The theory is very Germanocentric, even though its implications are global. Unless the theory is taken up outside of Germany, I think the English Wikipedia is unduly promoting an extremely fringe theory. It also seems perverse to argue that if a fringe theory is refuted by a reliable source it is entitled to a page on one of the world's top websites!--Jack Upland (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the first AfD, this is notable bunk. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - description of notable patent nonsense - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How notable? "Heribert Illig" gets less than 30,000 results on Google.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention Google. That the references are German doesn't mean it somehow fails notability, as if Germany isn't a real place - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I mentioned Google. I also don't think I suggested Germany was a phantom place. However, the fact that none of these references have been translated into English suggests the theory is obscure. It is also Wikipedia policy not to promote fringe theories. If Wikipedia is the main English source for this theory, I think Wikipedia is promoting it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are notable in German-language sources are notable - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And things that are reliably described as nonsense (in any language) are notable. Things that are generally tacitly accepted are not notable...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a page about a WP:FRINGE theory is not promoting it, and their notability does not have to be weighed against their relative incredibility. Similarly, the lack of support for a fringe theory in the English-speaking world doesn't make it non-notable; we have a page on the Derbyite theory of Shakespeare authorship which is popular in France, and the Bielefeld Conspiracy meme in German pop culture. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no evidence that this theory is popular in Germany (or anywhere else), just that for some reason Germans have bothered to criticise it.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2014 (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.