Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Götaland theory

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Götaland theory

I came across this gem while doing my regular patrol of Category:Conspiracy Theories (some of the pages in there have been the messiest articles I have seen on Wikipedia.) It is a very minor theory in one region of Sweden about the location of an ancient pagan group, and it seems extremely non-notable to me despite the article's length. The page has shown very little (if any) improvement since it was tagged for cleanup in July June 2005. Several editors called for its deletion a long time ago on its talk page. There is a (much shorter) article on the Swedish Wikipedia. I don't know what their inclusion standards are, but I think this theory is non-notable and a huge eyesore on the English Wikipedia, and that it should be deleted. Grandmasterka 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The theory is highly notable. It has been around since the 1920s or 30s, but has roots going back to the early 19th century. A series of programmes about this theory and its proponents was broadcast on Swedish national television in the 1980s and caused controversy as giving a too uncritical and sympathetic image of the theory. It is not taken seriously by academic historians or archaeologists, but they have nevertheless had to debunk it. The current article is badly written, badly structured and unreferenced, and a better one could probably more easily be written from scratch. I would not be very sorry to see it go, but if it is deleted, this should not be used as a precedent against recreation. u p p l a n d 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Replace with a new translation from the Sweedish wikipedia, as they are more likely to have gotten it right. JeffBurdges 13:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: weird bit of folk history that has been around for two centuries. It does need a clean up, mainly because it presents the flaws in the theory far more extensively than the theory itself. The arguments for deletion on the talk page are a little strange, by the way - the notability of this theory is not affected by the political affiliations of the people involved, or the fact that it is laughed at by _real_ historians. David Sneek 10:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David Sneek. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Uppland --Deville (Talk) 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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.