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.  Sandstein  05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictish Mithraism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This was created by User:Pictish-mithraism and is basically original research based upon the work of Norman Penny - see http://pictish-mithraism.com/. I can find no reliable sources using the phrase or discussing Pictish mithraism and believe it fails WP:NOTE. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the entire article is original research on a fringe theory (or as Doug suggests above, it may not even be notable enough to achieve fringe status), incorporating extensive copyvio from a draft book by Norman Penny (it seems probable that Norman Penny is actually the article's creator, Pictish-mithraism). BabelStone (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The theory is certainly WP:FRINGE, but whether it is notable fringe in the terms of the policy, I can't tell. The thin referencing suggests not. At the very least (copyvio apart) it should be rewritten to make this crystal-clear. It is unfortunate that the article contains, among the fringe stuff, more good information on & illustration of the Pictish symbols than we currently have anywhere else. If Penny manages to get his book published that might alter things a little, though I can't see it being an RS, but the article might work as one on the book, quoting reviews etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrations in the article appear to be taken from Penny's draft book as well, so User:Pictish-mithraism needs to identify himself as Penny and send the appropriate permission to OTRS otherwise they're going to get deleted as well. BabelStone (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you're right, but as he has uploaded them to Commons (where I have categorized them all btw) & the book is unpublished, that is not a problem. If they are on the website & copyright is claimed that might be. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever it is, it says "The information contained in this publication is Copyright © Norman J Penny unless stated otherwise and is protected by international copyright laws.". Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But on a quick look, none of the illustrations are on the website, nor could I see them on a couple of the more likely-looking PDFs. Once they uploaded on an open licence subsequent claims of copyright are invalid. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hadn't thought of that. But doesn't he have to identify as Norman Penny and shouldn't they be tagged until he does? Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with Johnbod here, the theory must be fringe, but the illustrations are of obvious interest. Either the Pictish materials could be merged with Pictish Stones or Picts (but that's already long), or converted (rewritten) into a new article on Pictish symbols. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry to dump that into the mainspace. I was on IRC, there were no other helpers about, and I was dealing with other helpees. I couldn't check most of the refs because they were books, and google indicated possible fringe/book promo etc. (see his talk). He made all these bizarre images I couldn't understand. I asked for eyes, but nobody was there. So, I figured, best course, why wait for more non-expert eyes. Approve it and post at relevant projects to push it one way or the other. Hope it was an okay call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in response to Babelstones "... illustrations in the article appear to be taken..." above, I took care to ask explicitly before approval if he created and owned the images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Author commentPictish-mithraism, as explained elsewhere, is the term used by Norman Penny to describe this topic. The web site referred to is the work of Norman Penny (myself) and focuses on the unique decoding of the Pictish symbols as having a meaning in context of Mithraism. The topics on which this interpretation is based are not original - Symbols on Pictish Stones and the Mysteries of Mithras - if I have caused confusion regarding NOR on this all I can do is apologise. What I am attempting to do with this article is to take a well argued interpretation to place in Wikipedia space and in so doiong to attract edits as appropriate. The matrerial is published per se and has been on a web site for almost two years (currently in its second version). Draft books are prepared - one with publishers for consideration, the other printed and available from me. I had considered the web site to equate to publication - maybe not. I am more than willing to modify the sense of the article if that would help others to not conclude on deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictish-mithraism (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment I think what you've made clear is that you were hoping to use your article to publicise your idea. That's not an unusual misconception, but Wikipedia is definitely not a place for original ideas. If you get a book published in accordance with WP:RS and if it is then taken up and gets some significant notice (see WP:NOTE and associated guidelines), then maybe we can have an article about your book. But until there is discussion in mainstream sources about Pictish Mithraism, as an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources (as per WP:RS have to say about a subject, this article fails to meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the idea of Pictish-mithraism has been explored in other works, preferably academic ones, you should make this very clear in the text & references, probably with quotations. Stuff on the website itself is covered by your copyright notice - stuff on PDFs just linked to from the website I'm not sure about, if they don't have their own notices. For the images, you should contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team (aka OTRS) by email & confirm your identity to them & that you as creator agree to the Commons licence. There should be no problem with them after that. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear (admitted) violation of WP:NOR, WP:NFT, and dubious in terms of WP:COI. No evidence of historical or even fringe notability. If the images are worth having somewhere, someone should write the appropriate article for them. Agricolae (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't matter how well argued an interpretation of a topic is - if it hasn't been covered in independent reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Author comment I understand the feedback above and would hope that the fundamantal conclusions in Pictish Mithraism are far from fringe notability - what is concluded is unique and challenges all previous interpretations of the symbols (word syllables, monarch names etc). I have made some minor updates to the article in way of clarifications. If there are any changes you might suggest to avoid deletion I will gladly take them on board. Kind regards - Norman J Penny. Pictish-mithraism (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the article needs is a (small) set of references to independent sources that discuss your approach and interpretations in "substantial" detail (whether they agree with you or not). Since the text for your book is obviously interesting even if controversial, it's likely it will attract some discussion. Unfortunately that probably won't come soon enough to save the article now, but you could ask to have it "userfied" (moved to your user space) in readiness for the addition of suitable citations and quotations from reviewers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Even academic references saying the whole idea of Pictish Mithraism is nonsense would be an improvement, as it would demonstrate the concept has at least been aired - at the moment there seems to be nothing showing that anyone other than yourself has even considered the matter. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although you must be aware that if that is the case, some or most of the article will go into detail about the rebuttal. Pages about academic research are not the property of the author to present their findings in the light they want. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is fundamental - Wikipedia was never intended as a place for people to propagate their own unique ideas, however interesting, different or potentially paradigm shifting the originator may think they are. It is not a question of somehow rewriting to improve the page. By its very nature and your stated intent in creating it, it is in direct violation of one of the central pillars of Wikipedia - No Original Research (WP:NOR. Agricolae (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (possibly userify) -- Despite the large number of citations, I believe this is either WP:OR or WP:FRINGE or something of that kind. As far as I know, direct evidence of the nature of Pictish religion is very scanty. It all comes down to interpretation of what the symbols reresent, which is essentially a matter of speculation. I have no doubt that much academic speculation has taken place. Mithraism was a late Roman religious cult of oriental origins and popular among the army. It is thus unlikely that its adherents should ahve converted the Picts, who were a barbarian enemy of Rome, at least inthe eyes of the soldiers. On the otehr hand, it might be possible to restructure the article into one on Pictish symbols, if we really do not have one already. That would be the sole purpose of userifying it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author response - having checked all the other references to Picts on Wikipedia there is none termed Pictish Symbols. I am quite prepared to restructure my article. Can any objection be seen, please? Thanks - Norman J PennyPictish-mithraism (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that probably wouldn't save your references to your own work. I imagine there's enough reliable sources out there to have an article on Pictish Symbols, but that would be a case of starting all over again rather than adapting this article. Even then, there's no guarantee that any references to Pictish Mithraism survive the editing process. Load of single purpose accounts attempt to add their own publication to existing article and the Wikipedia community tend to be quite ruthless in these cases. The bottom line is that if your book has not yet been covered by reliable sources elsewhere, it is highly unlikely it is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia anywhere. It might in the future should other independent sources pick this up, but we can look at adding the information if and when that happens, and not before. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and userify: This article contains info and references about both Pictish symbols and Mithraism. It brings the info together to present what Norman Penny has called a "unique decoding". Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to do this, Norman. I wonder whether you have read the policy page WP:NOT, which states (Section 2.2): "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information...If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals…" I think the page should probably be moved into Pictish-mithraism's user page, so that usable information contained in it will still be on hand and can be added e.g. to Pictish stones. But this should not be done in a way which would make Pictish stones a platform to argue or promote a new paradigm. A page called "Pictish symbols" would probably duplicate the topic area of Pictish stones, as the "stones" seem to be the main medium through which the "symbols" have reached us. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate the 5 or so lines Pictish stones has on the symbols, yes! Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether it will help WP readers to have 2 different pages, one about where the Pictish stones have been found, and a different page about what has been found on the stones? Or whether it would be better to have one page with info about both the location and the content of the stones? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only one page please! Pictish symbols should be a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was so obvious I've done it now. It already talks about symbols, Johnbod has done some good work there, and it's more than 5 or so lines. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I !vote Delete, OR, speculative theory with no RS; I've created a gallery of symbols at the end of Pictish stones, using the Commons images from the article-for-deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2012 (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.