Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giantology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:20, 17 May 2023

Giantology

[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)

Non-notable, fringe science neologism. The sources cited in the article just use "giantologist" or "giantology" in passing when talking about this or that hoax; there's no significant coverage of it as a concept. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets our guidelines for WP:GNG. This is a term which is used for centuries to describe those who study giants: there there are many reliable sources. The article was just started one day ago and more sources exist. Finally, the article clearly states that this is a hoaxy topic from start to finish. But we keep hoax and fringe articles that meet WP:NFRINGE, WP:NHOAX. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you have to admit that it's at least written in a weirdly "in-universe" way. The lead says much of the study of giantology has been based on myth and a lack of physical evidence. So by implication, there are giantological studies based on physical evidence of giants, a mythical creature? And then the body goes on to claim that there are "written", "archaeological", and "palaeontological" records of giants, which again—and I can't believe I'm actually writing this—are mythical creatures that are not real.

Anyway, the main point here is that I don't believe this is a notable fringe theory. The article currently cites 11 sources. Four of these are self-published pseudoarcheology/pseudohistory books and magazines, completely unusable garbage. Four are newspaper clippings about individual giant sightings, and two of those are over a hundred years old. Two are sceptical sources that only use the word "giantology" in passing and in a mocking fashion. That leaves one[1] which I can't access. So which of these are you basing your claim that "giantology" is a notable concept that passes the GNG on? – Joe (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently adding additional sources to the article: it was only started less than a day ago. We should consider that this term has been in use for more than 150 years and many sources exist. The reference the nominator makes to self published sources is in regard to the further reading section. Giantology is now being discussed in popular culture. The opposition to the topic and subsequent stop sign at a similar article which is an approved DYK nomination feels like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People naturally come to Wikipedia to read about terms such as this, and we serve our readers by neutrally covering a topic that is lasting with sustained use. I will not be commenting further, but I will continue to add references to the article. Bruxton (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what's next, bigfoot-ology? No evidence that this passes WP:GNG, article is chock-full of weasel words and broad claims that even if taken at face value would barely put up a (poor) facade of notability. - car chasm (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator (Joe) and car chasm. Very much fringe and non-notable. - Donald Albury 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First reference is to the fringe magazine Atlantis Rising, second is to something by the Nazi Frank Joseph. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Giant as a plausible search term. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case no. Someone would already be typing in the word giant, so this would be a redundant search term in terms of supporting a redirect. Redirects are cheap and useful when they expand searchability, but this isn't one of them. KoA (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be a plausible bluelink in an article: 'giantology' should redirect to 'giant', if we're not going to keep this article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into this enough to cast a !vote, but I don't think this is a plausible bluelink as the word "giantology" does not currently appear in article text anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bruxton (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that indicates the term or concept passes GNG. Another major problem is that the article does a poor job of discerning if the 'field' is about studying medical giantism or pseudoscientific waddling.★Trekker (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel that Jengod brings up some good points. I do think it might need to be moved somewhere, possibly giant lore or similar.★Trekker (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree on this being a WP:NEOLOGISM, fringe, and non-notable. KoA (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add part of the reason for deletion is what seems to be a WP:COATRACK effect now. People are starting to add information/discussion about giants in the article, but it's not focusing on the nominal subject of "giantology", but content that would belong moreso at giant, folkore, etc. That should not be confounded with notability of the subject at hand. KoA (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing like minded people with this notice. As an editor, this is rather disappointing to see. Bruxton (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not canvassing to place a notice on a noticeboard about something that you think is problematic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is too heavy a reliance on fringe sources, and the article seems like a mish-mash of vaguely related concepts. WP:TNT Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect we have an obligation to find WP:ATD. it is logical that people will search for this term since it has a long history of use both in sources from many years ago and present day. I think the article can stand on its own but if editors believe it should not exist, then it should be redirected to a target like Giant to help our readers. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the sense in which it's used and long history is as in the sense of the french wiktionary entry a history or treatise on giants. So the article should be pointing to Inca Garcilaso de la Vega and ~~Denis Henrion~~fr:Nicolas Henrion etc., way different than any of the current content. fiveby(zero) 23:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know from reading paleontology literature that during the 19th century and before the bones of many prehistoric animals were speculated to be those of giants prior to their scientific evaluation (Cuvieronius and Megalosaurus come to mind) but the concept of "giantology" seems very synthy to me, and there are only 26 uses of giantology on google scholar, whos use cases are very diverse, with a heavy focus on mythology, which this article doesn't cover at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:gigantology maybe, some kind of article looks interesting here, but this one is TNT. fiveby(zero) 00:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about TNT about this article. There's maybe an article that could be created on early modern period speculation about giants, but that's not the topic of this article. The google scholar results still look sparse though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Stephens Giants in Those Days: Folklore, Ancient History, and Nationalism (available here) but the more i think about it an expansions of Giant#Literary and cultural analysis and maybe some fossil record geomythology(if that's the correct term, never seen it before) would be more appropriate. fiveby(zero) 02:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there may be people who describe themselves as giantologists, and the term has sometimes been picked up in newspaper stories and fringe sources relating to them, this doesn't seem to be a recognised area of academic study. One of the cited sources actually describes them as "self-proclaimed". The article also conflates mythical giants with real very tall people. There's an example of the term being used (in a newspaper story) about a doctor who happened to have studied very tall people, but it doesn't seem to be a recognised medical specialisation either. Brunton (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article relies on fringe sources and WP:TNT applies here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep or draftify: I am concerned that many of the delete arguments seem to be arguing against the validity of giantology as a field of study, or against the quality of the article, rather than against the notability of the subject. It is simply fact that Wikipedia accepts articles on fringe theories, lies, hoaxes and so on: you might think that it shouldn't, but that's a debate against policy rather than an argument from policy. I'm also concerned to see WP:TNT so readily invoked: the page itself tells us to argue it with caution. User:Bruxton has done an excellent job of setting out the rationale for the article, though I would like to see the promised sources come into the article. AfDing an article barely a day after its creation seems premature, put mildly, if not outright uncivil. Declaring it unfixable certainly seems unwarranted at this juncture. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the scope of the article you are thinking of? I can't find a reputable dictionary that defines giantology or a good reference work, but see it used in these senses:

when the author really meant gigantology, a tale or treatise concerning giants
derisively, as one would add -ology to other words
per Hemiauchenia, fossil record to explain mythical giants or argue humans were larger in the past
Genesis 6 giants, JSTOR 4193170 etc.
medical but no longer current, as teratology, study of monsters

I was confused by #1, but think that should just be expansion of Giant. fiveby(zero) 17:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Bruxton has said is that sources exist; we're still waiting to hear what they are. And I came across the article because it was nominated for WP:DYK, so its creator evidently thought it was finished enough to feature on the main page, even though it was only a day old. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just move to giant lore; I think the topic is notable and the article is fine but giantologist isn't a serious job description, etc. jengod (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just added some material on the history of the study of giants (Pliny, Herotodus, Boccaccio, et al) and I have to feed my kids now but I'm digging into a 1946 book called "Apes, Men and Giants" (Franz) that might shed some light on how "giants" have influenced thinking about primatology and evolution. (material for a different article but until the 1800s no one in the West had ever seen an adult male orangutan [only trafficked babies] so the skeletons of adult orangs were believed to be a completely diff species) jengod (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: added some geomythology stuff and big primate skeletons (anthropology). My rushed searches suggest "giant lore" (or giantology if you will) is valid and important subtopic in comparative mythology and comparative literature. I suspect there's a parallel article to be written about cross-cultural dwarf lore with a nod to Homo floresiensis etc etc. I suspect that both articles would need a "history of medicine" section as well, to examine how and when doctors began to understand factors in human gigantism and dwarfism and thus fork away from "Grendel scary" primitivism. And now I'm running away to go watch Ted Lasso byyyyyyeeee jengod (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion sounds equivalent to rewriting the article from scratch (on a rather different topic) to me, but fair enough if you want to put the work in. Why do we need separate articles on giant lore and giants, though? – Joe (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe I'm leaning toward changing my vote but I'm not sure to what LOL
I think there's an interesting folklore studies and history of proto-science aspect to this

And I think there's the modern pseudoscience which I personally feel is done in bad faith etc.

I think a merge to cryptozoology might be the best course, in part bc that's a relatively higher traffic article that can appropriately contextualize the current state of "Giantology." And then the history of science and geomythology bits can be slotted into giant. jengod (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into Giant. I can imagine there might be an article on the topic specifically of the study of giants, and that it could standalone, but I don't think the current article or its sources are there yet. (There also seem to be multiple different uses for the term "Giantology".) As for the Giant article, it's ironically small and underdeveloped, so it could use some new content. CMD (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been working on trying to cleanup the article due to the WP:COATRACK issues you allude to (still pretty strongly on delete myself), redirect is really the next best option after that I can see since there really doesn't seem to be any real distinction from giant lore. This article is really just a near WP:POVFORK to loosely write about anything giant related in folklore. In trying to tackle some of the source misuse issues at the article, I'm not seeing anything worth merging at least, and if there is, probably better to do from scratch at relevant articles with appropriate focused sources rather than be tied to content at this article. KoA (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Stephens again, "‘De historia gigantum’: Theological Anthropology before Rabelais" wplibrary, looks useful, tho only have time to go through part. Mostly theological, but points to the 'Giant' entry in the ninth and eleventh editions of Britannica, where ..serious discussions of ' the conception of giants, as special races distinct from mankind,' or cautiously affirming that ' so far as can be judged from actual remains, it does not appear that giants, in the sense of tribes of altogether superhuman stature, ever existed, or that the men of ancient times were on the whole taller than those now living.' changes to a discussion of gigantism. Also: The Britannica evidence is significant in that it marks the approximate period at which Christian theologians and philosophers had to admit that they could no longer hope to explain away empirical evidence and continue to take for granted the existence of Giants several times larger than human beings, or use the Giants as proof of the veracity of the flood-story of Genesis or the entire Old Testament.

There's much good content here i think, but the problem is setting the scope of the article to prevent the coatrack issues you are pointing to. fiveby(zero) 14:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's Adrienne Mayor The first fossil hunters for geomthyology, which along w/ literary analysis and lore should probably just be an expansion of giant. fiveby(zero) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete, mostly per KoA's coatrack, but it is certainly not a neologism. First organize the content in the giant article, then create sub-articles if needed. Draftify/userfy and allow recreation w/ a good scope if anyone is willing to put in the work. fiveby(zero) 15:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fiveby above. Giant lore/mythology is one thing, but "giantology" no. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to "giant". Using minor historical hoaxes to coatrack and give credence to a WP:FRINGE neologism is not how we do things here. He iro 17:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 * '''delete''', mostly per {{u|KoA}}'s coatrack, but it is certainly not a neologism. First organize the content in the [[giant]] article, then create sub-articles if needed. Draftify/userfy and allow recreation w/ a good scope if anyone is willing to put in the work. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 15:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * '''Delete''' as per Fiveby above. Giant lore/mythology is one thing, but "giantology" no. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
+* '''Delete''' or redirect to "giant". Using minor historical hoaxes to coatrack and give credence to a [[WP:FRINGE]] neologism is not how we do things here. [[User:Heironymous Rowe|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkBlue">He</span>''']][[User talk:Heironymous Rowe|'''<span style="color:darkBlue">iro</span>''']] 17:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)