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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoarchaeology[edit]

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

This is a surprisingly biased article. I'm no fan of Von Daniken, but the very title of this article screams overt bias. For the sake of neutrality, this article needs to be gutted or just redone from scratch, hence the nomination for deletion. If it were called something along the lines of "Alternative Archaeology"---or even "Fringe" would be comparatively better---and then the points regarding this topic's treatment by mainstream academia were given its own section, then this article would be more neutral. Otherwise this article's clear bias is embarrassingly on par with content expected from Reddit. Frauhistorikerin (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The subject is quite notable and has numerous available sources. Bias in an article is not a valid reason for deletion and AfD is not cleanup. - Mr X 02:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: much as I hate citing WP:NOTCLEANUP, it would seem to apply here. Seems like lots of WP:RS, though no comment on bias since the article is quite long and wordy. I also note that the title follows WP:COMMONNAME, as mentioned on the talkpage. Ansh666 06:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable subject with plenty of sources.--Charles (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate this is a notable topic: books like Feder's and the listed articles establish notability. The title is a well-known term. If the nominator's main concern is with the article name, there are procedures for discussing that. And WP:FRINGE makes it clear that articles on fringe ideas should concentrate on accurately reporting the opinion of mainstream experts, e.g. if all the mainstream sources say it's nonsense, it's ok for the article to say so. Despite what the proposer thinks, there is no requirement for an article to be largely favorable towards its subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "the very title of this article screams overt bias". Er, really? Wikipedia reports the terms used in the literature. In this case, many appropriate sources are included that explicitly describe "Pseudoarchaeology". Moreover, I am not convinced that there is significant bias within the article. Ceratinly it is rather verbose and would benefit from copy-editing, but I think that the sources are given appropriate weighting. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 26 July 2013 (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.