Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilis problem

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pilis problem

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reviewed as a new page reviewer. IMO there is no suitable Wikipedia topic here, it's apparently about some aspect being debated. And even that is not explained. There is a January tag that said it is in the process of being translated from somewhere else but no activity since then. The editor who created this is both blocked and retired. Suggest deleting. At best an unsuccessful half-done translation with no further activity. It can be translated at a later date if appropriate. North8000 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the original Hungarian page, it appears to be an unfinished WP:FRINGE page there as well that was written by the blocked person translating it into English. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article is in itself a fringe idea. It's true that there are various branches of Neopaganism in Hungary, to which it is related, and which as a set of religious, esoteric, or pseudohistorical beliefs are popular enough to be notable. It's possible to describe and discuss the existence and social significance of these beliefs as such, see this academic paper for example: From Attila to the Heart Chakra - Postmodern pilgrimages. However, framing it as a "problem" or "dispute" about the actual veracity of the beliefs in established scholarship does not adhere to WP:NPOV and is a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

There were problems with this now-blocked user adding fringe and discredited theories in other articles, with explanations like "I don't claim these things are definitely true, but they're disputed, and readers should know about them so they can decide for themselves". The article from the Hungarian Wikipedia that it says it's being translated from was also written almost entirely by him. It should be deleted from there too. There's also some cleanup needed of similar material about the "dispute" he added in Dobogó-kő § Pilis problem and other articles that link to this one. --IamNotU (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed material and links from the various other articles, per WP:FRINGE; this article is now an orphan. --IamNotU (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator, per reasons given there. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the original article in hu.wikipedia, it appears this might merit a few sentences or a paragraph in a related article (e.g., History of Hungary or Neopaganism in Hungary), but there isn't enough material to justify a separate article. And trusting the nominator's statement that this falls under WP:FRINGE, this likely fails the notability requirement. -- llywrch (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, while I removed Kapeter77's fringe and pseudohistorical claims from Dobogókő, I left a sentence that had been in the article for several years previously along with citations of a couple of academic papers about the adherents, including the one I linked to above. As with subjects like the existence of Noah's Ark or energy healing, just because the beliefs are rejected by science, doesn't mean they aren't notable, and there may be enough material for a good article. But we never present it as a "dispute" in Wikipedia's voice, which is the premise of this article right down to the title. --IamNotU (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, and the nominator, I didn't indicate fringe, my assessment is that there is not even a coherently described topic, not even a fringe one. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the article as it stands doesn't describe things in a coherent way. However, it's clear to me what the topic is. See page 11 of the above paper for example. There is a fringe/newage/alternate-history theory that has received some attention (and tourism), that Hungarians are descended from the Huns and were ruled by Atilla, that the major Hungarian cities used to be located somewhere other than where they are now, i.e. in the Pilis hills, that there is a great energy center or chakra in the "Pilis triangle", a configuration of the mountains corresponding to Orion's belt, and so on.

I don't think the problem is that it's not coherently written, in which case it could be stubified, nor that it lacks notability, in which case it could be re-created with enough sources. If we decide to delete it, the reasons will affect whether it or similar articles can be re-created in the future, and under what circumstances. I would be inclined to accept a coherent ethnographical article on this particular aspect of Hungarian culture. But the present article, and any similarly-titled future article that describes it as a disputed but plausible theory, problem, or debate, should be deleted as not adhering to WP:NPOV. In other words, I don't agree with: It can be translated at a later date if appropriate. --IamNotU (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could define a coherent topic and feels that it is wp:notable, I'd be cool with stubifying, even if notability is not proven.North8000 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just in case I wasn't clear, I definitely don't think it should be stubified. It should be deleted and never re-created. If someone wants to, they could define a coherent topic and write an article based on the valid academic research. But that research is about the social phenomenon that people have developed this set of esoteric and pseudohistorical beliefs, how it's bound up with nationalist and neo-religious movements, and so on. There is no serious research whatsoever into whether the claims themselves may be legitimate, despite what this article says. A new article or stub wouldn't use this article's title or premise (because it's not a real "problem"), nor any of its text, and all its citations are unreliable self-published promotion of the fringe theories about "the hidden, mysterious secrets of Pilis, the ancient Hungarian mystery". --IamNotU (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2020 (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.