- 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 due to the lack of reliable sources needed to support notability. A merge suggestion was made, but not agreed upon; if anyone would like to consider this option, I can userify or email the text. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Bovis scale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's no indication of notability and no reliable sources used in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- provisional Keep - I can't check the named book sources, but this is certainly a widely-used concept; a basic Google search piles on all kinds of documents, from blogs to articles to books. Naturally all so heavy on the woo that just scanning the list gives you orgone poisoning, but then this is a woo concept, and a notable such a one may have an article. The article even seems appropriately hedge-y to me, although some improvements could certainly be made (in addition to better sourcing). -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that notability is determined by a subject's coverage in reliable sources, not their coverage in unreliable sources. This is something that I've struggled with in the past, and am not entirely in agreement with, but it is what it is.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it.
16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- you are right it is surprisingly difficult to find decent sources on this. The idea is floating around since the 1970s, and it is certainly notable, but it finds surprisingly little mention in secondary sources. I found
this 1954 reference which seems to confirm that a Frenchman called Bovis was indeed researching the Great Pyramids. And
this 1974 source is the first mention I could find in primary "psi" literature. The editorial task here is to unearth the actual publications by Bovis, which presumably appeared in obscure 1930s French journals. --
dab
(𒁳)
22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- How could a reference about Mr. Bovis in the context of archeological photographs as well as a mention in a handbook of "parapsychological" discoveries denote reliability in source about an article on a highly esoteric matter about nutritional aspects notable for featuring something as critical as health benefit claims? lmaxmai ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- you are right it is surprisingly difficult to find decent sources on this. The idea is floating around since the 1970s, and it is certainly notable, but it finds surprisingly little mention in secondary sources. I found
this 1954 reference which seems to confirm that a Frenchman called Bovis was indeed researching the Great Pyramids. And
this 1974 source is the first mention I could find in primary "psi" literature. The editorial task here is to unearth the actual publications by Bovis, which presumably appeared in obscure 1930s French journals. --
dab
(𒁳)
22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that notability is determined by a subject's coverage in reliable sources, not their coverage in unreliable sources. This is something that I've struggled with in the past, and am not entirely in agreement with, but it is what it is.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it.
16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep (without much enthusiasm). Sources show that the term is used by occult/paranormal sources. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
- Keep or merge, classic WP:FRINGE topic, certainly notable, but as it stands it might also be merged into Radionics. -- dab (𒁳) 22:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources discuss this topic. Even hardly any unreliable 'occult' sources do. I have a big foot ( talk) 22:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or merge in modified form with an article about esoteric claims No scientific proof is mentioned for this highly esoteric concept. Absent here, it is at least mentioned on the variant of the article in German. Further, the article makes health benefit claims and that is not acceptable. lmaxmai ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I can see an editor pointing out above that this is a "highly esoteric" subject; in case you haven't considered that statement fully, you should be aware that it is an admission that this subject is not notable. "Esoteric" is an antonym of "notable", after all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This is not notable woo like another user claimed, no reliable sources discuss it, not even a skeptic book has attempted to debunk it - it really is that un-notable. 82.132.216.220 ( talk) 06:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:FRINGE, all sources in-universe (themselves fringe), so notability is not demonstrated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:06, 15 March 2017 (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.
- 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 due to the lack of reliable sources needed to support notability. A merge suggestion was made, but not agreed upon; if anyone would like to consider this option, I can userify or email the text. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Bovis scale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's no indication of notability and no reliable sources used in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- provisional Keep - I can't check the named book sources, but this is certainly a widely-used concept; a basic Google search piles on all kinds of documents, from blogs to articles to books. Naturally all so heavy on the woo that just scanning the list gives you orgone poisoning, but then this is a woo concept, and a notable such a one may have an article. The article even seems appropriately hedge-y to me, although some improvements could certainly be made (in addition to better sourcing). -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that notability is determined by a subject's coverage in reliable sources, not their coverage in unreliable sources. This is something that I've struggled with in the past, and am not entirely in agreement with, but it is what it is.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it.
16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- you are right it is surprisingly difficult to find decent sources on this. The idea is floating around since the 1970s, and it is certainly notable, but it finds surprisingly little mention in secondary sources. I found
this 1954 reference which seems to confirm that a Frenchman called Bovis was indeed researching the Great Pyramids. And
this 1974 source is the first mention I could find in primary "psi" literature. The editorial task here is to unearth the actual publications by Bovis, which presumably appeared in obscure 1930s French journals. --
dab
(𒁳)
22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- How could a reference about Mr. Bovis in the context of archeological photographs as well as a mention in a handbook of "parapsychological" discoveries denote reliability in source about an article on a highly esoteric matter about nutritional aspects notable for featuring something as critical as health benefit claims? lmaxmai ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- you are right it is surprisingly difficult to find decent sources on this. The idea is floating around since the 1970s, and it is certainly notable, but it finds surprisingly little mention in secondary sources. I found
this 1954 reference which seems to confirm that a Frenchman called Bovis was indeed researching the Great Pyramids. And
this 1974 source is the first mention I could find in primary "psi" literature. The editorial task here is to unearth the actual publications by Bovis, which presumably appeared in obscure 1930s French journals. --
dab
(𒁳)
22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that notability is determined by a subject's coverage in reliable sources, not their coverage in unreliable sources. This is something that I've struggled with in the past, and am not entirely in agreement with, but it is what it is.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it.
16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep (without much enthusiasm). Sources show that the term is used by occult/paranormal sources. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
- Keep or merge, classic WP:FRINGE topic, certainly notable, but as it stands it might also be merged into Radionics. -- dab (𒁳) 22:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources discuss this topic. Even hardly any unreliable 'occult' sources do. I have a big foot ( talk) 22:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or merge in modified form with an article about esoteric claims No scientific proof is mentioned for this highly esoteric concept. Absent here, it is at least mentioned on the variant of the article in German. Further, the article makes health benefit claims and that is not acceptable. lmaxmai ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I can see an editor pointing out above that this is a "highly esoteric" subject; in case you haven't considered that statement fully, you should be aware that it is an admission that this subject is not notable. "Esoteric" is an antonym of "notable", after all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This is not notable woo like another user claimed, no reliable sources discuss it, not even a skeptic book has attempted to debunk it - it really is that un-notable. 82.132.216.220 ( talk) 06:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:FRINGE, all sources in-universe (themselves fringe), so notability is not demonstrated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:06, 15 March 2017 (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.