Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Pyramid of Giza: alternative theories

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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Pyramid of Giza: alternative theories[edit]

An absolutely clear-cut case of original research with no presentation of evidence or verification of allegations. Delete Zunaid 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if not OR, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but there are no sources cited. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 13:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Moreover, this looks like a POV fork from Great Pyramid of Giza. This author has also added information on alternative theories to that article, part of which was reverted as POV. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 13:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, reads like OR to me. PJM 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. --Bachrach44 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks OR because of the lack of references. Also violates POV in various places. I do think an article about alternative theories has a place in here, but the alternative theory has to be documented etc. Mystman666 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and POV - no sources cited. -- (aeropagitica) 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite I suggested something like this article as a way to clear the non-mainstream theories out of Great Pyramid of Giza. There's all kinds of crazy stuff written about pyramids (such as this article as it stands), but some of the craziness is at least notable, in the same way that some JFK conspiracies are notable. Unfortunately, there appears to be a high correlation between believing alternative theories and being unable to write neutral prose. jmstylr 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
From the article: "much that is written about any of these buildings is only hypothesis and conjecture." Yes, especially this article. Delete in agreement with Mystman666 and most other voters. Barno 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 18:43, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
rewite / build This is in the process of being re-written and has received some initial amendments. However, some people would serve themselves and (more importantly) the audience of Wikipedia greater if they examined the mainstream version they are necessarily protecting, examined the evidence offered in some of the alternatives, and didn't simply dismiss something just because Graham Hancock also wrote it in a book! This page can and is being re-written - it is a process, just as some tweaks to bring neutrality were necessary and made to the 'main page'. Build the page, correct the bits that are not NPOV, and allow it to house the bits that otherwise will overflow to the 'standard theory' page. It is, after all, mostly arguable theory on both sides of the coin. FYI I am perfectly capable of writing neutral prose, although i do have my opinions; sometimes they sneak out. I'm sure you wouldn't do the same...--Genesis 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thought I'd have a go at trying to rewrite the article to achieve NPOV and remove unverified evidence, but I had to give up after only a few paragraphs. The article is just too POV (e.g. "These archaeologists claim that this amounts to sufficient evidence to state their model as though it were fact.") and makes both "extraordinary" and EXTREMELY VAGUE claims without citation (e.g. "The problem for any dating is that the age of the rock is of no help...") . You'd have to remove so much of it to get it into an encyclopedic state that you'd be left with no more than a few lines. Zunaid 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment NPOV doesn't mean it must adhere to the standard point of view, yet in this case it has to state itself as different from the standard. Making any mention of its claims (apparently, dating an ancient building based on the discovery of a small amount of circumstantial evidence, from debris found excavated near by, DOESN'T comprise an extraordinary claim then?) is interpreted as against the neutral, yet its actually just against the common view. Not so long ago, the NPOV was that women were less important than men... to suggest different would have been considered outlandish, and any proof offered through logic considered unsubstantial. Things change. Sometimes. FYI what is 'wrong' about the statement 'dating the rock is no help'? it's a fact, surely! Dating the age of the rock is completely useless in dating the age of a building! this is an example of an un-neutral viewpoint taking editorial action on a piece; the veracity of the statements doesn't actually matter.--194.73.217.241 (Genesis) 09:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the sentence again. As it stands here. Or in the article. It seems entirely counter-intuitive in both cases. IANAArcheologist but surely the purpose of dating is to determine the age of the rock, so how does that statement make any kind of sense? Zunaid 13:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...they don't date the rock itself; they don't date the actual building!? They date circumstantial evidence from the surrounding area; usually this has some authority, because the finds are clearly related. However, in the circumstances of the Great Pyramid on the Giza plateau, the evidence has been very meagre to come by. Thus they have found very little by way of viable archaeological finds, with nothing substantial to tie them to the actual building of the pyramid. Usually, with tombs, they have plenty of evidence by way of carvings or painting on the walls, non-gold artefacts left by the raiders... they have actual evidence tying the location to a person or event, even a god. It is not the case with the Great Pyramid. The question raised in some of the alternative theories of the age has been how valid the dating of these finds is. Yet, according to all the above, and discussions elsewhere, stating this is deemed outside the NPOV. That is to misconstrue, however, the meaning of NPOV. Neutral is not merely the mainstream view. Neutral is balance between opposing valid arguments, where they exist, and having the articles not express personal opinions. It is also exposing weaknesses in arguments where they exist. I am endeavouring to do the same to the alternatives, but at the moment I spend more of my limited time defending their right to exist than doing this. --Genesis 16:37, 10 January 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.