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 of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeogeodetic Association[edit]

A group for whom 45 Google hits exist. No gnews hits, no evidence of significance, no evidence that this is widely considered a genuine field of study or that this group are significant within that field (though they might be - it could just be that the entire field of study is not significant). Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per JzG. -- Kjkolb 12:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity, advertisement. See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeogeodesy. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity; nn. Bucketsofg 14:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've made comments on the archaeogeodesy deletion discussion page that are also relevant here. JzG, you miss the point that there is no evidence whatsoever that this is considered a non-serious or non-genuine field of study or that the AgA is a non-serious group. The AgA's co-written pamphlet is considered as serious by the British Library, who file it under 'occultism', not 'hoaxes', and by the Exeter University mathematics department, and its work is so considered by those who have attended its lectures. These lectures have not, as far as I am aware, been advertised on the internet - but so what? I can send scanned images of flyers advertising meetings, going back more than a decade, if anyone is interested. I don't think the AgA has ever been interested in basking in the academic or media limelight, and I think the idea that 'advertisement' is involved in this article, is way off the mark.

(Also JzG, I don't think you have considered this properly if you genuinely believe I am a sockpuppet for James Q Jacobs!) 158-152-12-77 22:54, 2 April 2006 (BST)

• Delete. Whether it is serious or genuine is not the issue. This appears to be an esoteric and little-known field of study, which qualifies it as non-notable. Fan1967 00:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I stated at AfD/Archaeogeodesy that I think the study of ancient alignments (such as Ley lines) is notable but the fact that there are two competing definitions for the term shows that it is too early to be included as an encyclopedia entry (some neologisms eventually become encylopedic but this is too early). The Association is a clearer case to my mind. Other than their own advocacy for the field of study, I could find no evidence they had attracted outside attention, so they are not notable or verifiable. Even a published critcism of them would give some independent verification of what their views are and why they are notable; or an article for followers of ancient mysteries that would discuss the association (either pro or con)--at this point it looks like they haven't made an impact in their field of interest. I think the vanity suggestion is also valid and it would be best if a future article were not written by the founder or leading proponent of the organization. Thatcher131 00:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriousness. Whether it's serious has been raised as an issue. I think it is an issue, because if it were a joke, this would be a legitimate reason for exclusion. The fact that it's serious is relevant in the context of a deletion discussion, although not in itself reason to include the article. Competing definitions. Well there are competing definitions of 'archaeogeodesy', not of the AgA. I don't quite understand your point about two competing definitions being reason to exclude either article. There are competing definitions of many many terms included in Wikipedia, including e.g. mathematics. Verifiability. You are mistaken about the AgA being verifiable. You would have thought their authorship of a work carrying an ISBN and with copies lodged in libraries would be verification of their existence. That was published in 1992. Today in 2006 they can still be contacted through the publisher, Unpopular Books, although this takes about 2 weeks because many of the people involved are not especially into the internet. Notability. Your failure to find evidence that they have attracted outside attention is not evidence of the absence of evidence of notability. As I said, an AgA pamphlet is reviewed on an Exeter University website - which is surely evidence of attraction of outside interest, and it's even online too. (Unless someone is going to say the guy at Exeter is a secret member or agent of the AgA!) AgA work has also been mentioned in Neoist publications (e.g.here)and philosophical publications (e.g.here, and, like I said, in the London Psychogeographical Association's newsletter. Authorship. I don't think there's an issue as to who writes the Wikipedia article. The issues are whether it is NPOV and accurate, and any article that doesn't meet these criteria should be edited until it does. If someone encounters the term 'archaeogeodesy' or hears of the AgA, why shouldn't they be able to look it up in Wikipedia? Esoteric. 'Esoteric' (or some people's opinion that something is esoteric) surely does not qualify something as 'non-notable'.

158-152-12-77 11:47, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Per Worldcat, only 6 libraries worldwide have this "book," which is actually a 31 page pamphlet. To me, an association is notable if it has notable members or has made an impact on its field. Having a single pamphlet produced 14 years ago does not suggest that the organization has ever been significant in its field. Thatcher131 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that mention by the London psychgeographical society is evidence of notability either as that group was the joint published of the AgA,s pamphlet and has only published one other book on its own (also through Unpopular books). Thatcher131 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no evidence the organization's existence or importance are acknowleged by Exeter University's Department of Mathematics, or The British Library. Note that according to google, The Great Conjuction is hosted on Exeter's site only under the personal web space of an unfunded honorary researcher, and in my opinion, being published by Unpopular Books does not pass WP:V. EricR 14:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken. It sounds as though you didn't look in the British Library's catalogue, before stating that "there is no evidence" that they acknowledge the AgA's existence. The work's shelfmark at the British Library is HMNTS YK.1994.a.8349. The Dewey class number is 133 20. The system number is 008153514, and the organisation's name is clearly recorded in the relevant entry. Whether or not Mr Watkins's post is funded is irrelevant, and the word 'personal' is misleading. (His work is well known in the field of academic parapsychology). It is unclear what test exactly you believe publication by Unpopular Books, rather than by some other publisher, doesn't pass. They have been publishing books and pamphlets for about 25 years, by numerous authors, not limited to those mentioned on either their website or the relevant Wikipedia entry. Probably hundreds of thousands of copies have been distributed, all told, including of several titles stocked in numerous libraries. And by the way, for future reference, Worldcat is not a comprehensive source on how many libraries stock anything. All it states is how many libraries it is aware of. Of course, the detractors here (file under 'what I don't know, or know about, isn't important'?) have already made up their minds, so I'm not going to waste any more time. There's no point. 158-152-12-77 02:36, 9 April 2006 (BST)

• • • While I'm here: in the UK and Ireland alone, copies are held by the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, at Newcastle, Oxford, and Trinity College Dublin. COPAC classes it under both "parapsychology and geography" and "occultism". 158-152-12-77 02:36, 9 April 2006 (BST)

• Delete per WP:V. Stifle 23:49, 3 April 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.