Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunstone (medieval)

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. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone (medieval)

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

Essay masquerading as article, massive steaming pile of original research WuhWuzDat 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good masquerade, then. Would you please explain how you find it to be original research? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you missed this section?? WuhWuzDat 02:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I did. Good point. I'll also note that the deleted article Sunstone in Iceland makes me wonder what's up with this subject and author.
    On the other hand, the section you mentioned says two of the references are allegorical (suggesting the others are not). If one deleted the text associated with those two references (which ones are they?), and then that statement, would the article be salvageable?
    Cheers, Joe S. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The following section also contains quite a bit of OR, as does the lead, "A theory exists that the sunstone had polarizing attributes and was used as a navigation instrument by Viking period seafarers". what theory? where does it exist? When you remove all the OR, all that is left is a shadowy cobweb of words, following its description as a mythical mineral. WuhWuzDat 02:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In addition to the deleted article you mentioned, there was also Sunstone, medieval, speedy deleted G7 after author blanked it, immediately after it was prodded,(just like Sunstone in Iceland)!). The author seems a bit desperate to have their work as an article. WuhWuzDat 02:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm, the polarizing thing in the lead seems to've been a theory of a Danish archaeologist going by an earlier version [1] of the article. --Whitehorse1 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not OR, because it's sourced. It's actually very well-sourced, to academic journals and works published by university presses. Encyclopedic topic etc. --Whitehorse1 02:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't help finding the approach taken toward this new editor unnecessarily bitey. Unsuitable content does need to be dealt with robustly, but I don't think that applies here. I happened to see a link to it being added to a disambiguation page I'd once edited and have watchlisted. (Incidentally, I had posted at the editor's talkpage and on the nominators, [2] but our letters got crossed in the e-post.) Very shortly before, the editor created "Sunstone in Iceland", which was the one I saw. I removed the prod, because it didn't seem like a personal essay to me. They blanked the page, perhaps in despondent response to the deletion notice. That's not uncommon with new editors. They then made the duplicate "Sunstone (medieval)" instead. ...Being new, I expect they hadn't realized they can move (rename) a page, or request it be moved since you need a certain amount of edits before you can perform pagemoves.
I'm not sure the above comment saying the parts that claim specific accounts are allegorical amount to original research is right. The section is well-sourced, perhaps therefore it's a matter of style that could be resolved through clearer in-text attribution? --Whitehorse1 02:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by author.For clarification: The other entries of the same under different headings was my clumsy novice attempt to change the heading. I do not know how to delete the other entries (Sunstone in Iceland and Sunstone, medieval) and would appreciate your help. The entry is a well researched thing with a lot of work and based on properly published material, mostly in refereed journals of medieval literature. (I don't know how to join this discussion in an other way than by editing the discussion page) ArniEin
Keep. Whitehorse1, thank you for the insightful comment
- I hadn't considered the potential lack of understanding of the WP article move process, vice blank/delete and recreate. Your comment provides a good-faith reason (as my comment had said, I didn't understand what was going on).
- I also agree we should encourage new editors.
- I do think the article can be salvaged, as noted in my original reply, in part by removing the "Allegorical references" or referencing reliable sources that do draw the conclusions noted.
Ultimately, I think doing the above, plus adding one or more in-line tags where the references could be improved (as needed) would suffice. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with cleanup needed. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 by author. I guess there is some misunderstanding about the "allegorical sources" here. Two of the original MEDIEVAL works mentioning the sunstone are allegorical, - that means that the texts contain another layers of meaning, like so many medieval texts do. This means that they need special consideration as authentic records of the existence of sunstones as physical objects. This is a central issue in this WP entry, so deleting the "allegorical references" would leave nothing useful about the medieval sunstone. ArniEin
- Referring to Reliable Sources that interpret these "Allegorical sources" in the way stated in the article would address the major issue that seem to have led to this deletion proposal. This didn't help me understand the issue of "allegorical sources". But (and to the original proposer's point), it is important that the article not have the appearance of being based, at least in part, on Original Research (OR). I think this can be addressed, which is why I recommended Keep. If you have not done so already, reading the referenced article on OR would help you rework the article a bit. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now added references in order to minimize any impression of Original Research (OR). I have also altered the text to clarify the issue related to the allegorical nature of the medieval written records of sunstones. I believe all references to the scholarly interpretation of the allegorical texts are in place now ArniEin (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Delete"~~, as I still feel this is OR as 7 (of the currently 24) references are to papers written by "Einarsson, Árni.", or various other abbreviations thereof. The articles main author is "ArniEin". This article is the very definition of OR, being an "analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the (3rd party) sources." WuhWuzDat 14:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not. If the works are published that's completely different. If Stephen Hawking wants to come here and write (well, dictate) an article on a recognized theoretical physics concept and use some of his own sources published in academic journals or by established publishing houses that's fine. More than fine in fact. Contributions and assistance from subject matter experts help improve articles. I've not seen any indication the article has a conjectural interpretation of its cited sources. –Whitehorse1 15:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  ^{P.S., As nominator a 'delete' is kinda implied, so typically you can just comment unmarked.}
  - I concur that it is not OR, as it is published. It is indeed a Primary Source, but once it is published, it is not considered OR (because the definition of OR is material that has no published sources). jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may wish to go read the WP:OR page, as the quote in my previous reply was directly from that page, with my addition of "(3rd party)".Regardless of the fact of the sources being published or unpublished, if the positions being advanced by this "article" are not supported directly by sources, the article is OR.WuhWuzDat 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm very familiar with the Policy. What is your basis for asserting the factual claims & statements in the article text are not, in fact, supported by the sources to which they are inline-cited? –Whitehorse1 16:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well sourced, with not only academic references (I wish I had access to those journals!) but a couple of English-language newspaper articles for good measure. I've made the lead paragraph conform better with our usage, the body could do with tightening to reduce repetition, and sad to say, a lot of the authors should be un-redlinked as unlikely to have articles any time soon, but it proves notability - the problems are pretty much all cosmetic. For what it's worth, we already had a related article on Vegvísir, which I discovered when determining whether there was an article on the saga hiding somewhere. That refers to the modern use in polar navigation and might help allay any lingering suspicion of a hoax, though it's badly under-referenced right now. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting an well-referenced article, which is clearly notable and a long way from OR. St Anselm (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be well referenced. I am failing to see the OR claimed by OP. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is well-sourced and informative; I, also, don't see the phantom OR. There are referenes from multiple peer-reviewed journals; the possible WP:COI is alleviated by, as noted, the articles being peer-reviewed. I am also very disturbed by the addition of words, even parenthetically, that are not in a policy to a quote from that policy to alter the policy's wording to support a deletion agenda. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 30 December 2010 (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.