Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th parallel (phenomenon)

:{{la|30th parallel (phenomenon)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/30th_parallel_(phenomenon) Stats])

:({{Find sources|30th parallel (phenomenon)}})

Fringe theory / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:FRINGE and WP:POV, no objectivity in the discussion of the theory. Sources are of questionable or poor reliability (Facebook for example). Mostly the article is just a list of places, with a few mentions of dolphins thrown in for good measure. Bazonka (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not be deleted because:
• it describes the real phenomenon of the 30th Parallel - please, check all the geo-coordinates of the unique manmade landmarks and natural sites, located on this latitude

+to RHaworth: "Fringe theory" - 1. but so far nobody has offered the best, although the phenomenon is obvious even to a child : )

2. like all the theories it has to be examine, so, an expedition doing it, among others

• it describes the real, perfectly known places, which are really located inside the belt of the 30th parallel N (Pyramyds, mount. Kailash, Lhasa, Shanghai, Jerusalem, Houston, etc.)

• it also describes non-profit, non-govermental, humanitarian expedition, going by this "belt", including the program of this expedition - without any promotion of smth. (I just put the link to the documentary, which is filming during the expedition, to show how serious it is and to refer to the reliable and proven source (Cinando.com).

• provided information is backed up by independent sources, including articles in the independent magazines and monographs in English

+ to Bazonka:

• 1. "no objectivity in the discussion of the theory" - it's not the discussion of the theory - Wiki is not the blog, aren't it?, it's the describing of the theory. What do you see as the lack of objectivity in the description of this theory?
• 2. "Sources are of questionable or poor reliability (Facebook for example)" - untruth: all the sources are independent, objective and reliable (including books with all the ISBN details). I put the link to facebook, because there you can find a translated version of the articles. The original versions are here: a) [http://vinogrodskiy-studio.ru/qigong/a-166.html] b) [http://vinogrodskiy-studio.ru/qigong/a-186.html]
• 3. "Mostly the article is just a list of places..." - visually it's so, because of the spaces between locations (for better readability), but mosty this article consist of the explaining and describing text.
• 4. "...with a few mentions of dolphins thrown in for good measure"" - untruth: the 30th parallel belt is going through all the major habitats of dolphins and whales - please, take your time to check it.

let's count together:

::a) Canary islands (pilot whales, finvales and others as residents) and Bahamas (spotted dolphins, bottlenose, etc. as residents) - ""one and two"

::b) Hawaii (humpback whales, etc. as residents) -"three"

::с) Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Califorina (half of all cetaceans of the planet) - "four and five"

::d) Japanese islands (have you seen "the Cave" documentary?) - "six"

::e) Karnali river in Nepal (unique river! dolphins) - "seven"

::f) gulf of Suez, Eilat (red sea) and the gulf of Sidra (bottlenoses, spotted, etc.) - "eight, nine and ten"

It's not enough?! It's nearly all the main aquatoriums! and ("what a coincedence") - and all these places are swarm with dolphins (and, sometimes, - whales)

Sorry, I didn't find dolphins in China or Jordan, but it's impossible, as you perfectly understand.

--Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This article is quite an embarrassment. I'm sorry the dolphins have got snarled up in it (there are a lot near where I live at 57°N[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cypron-Range_Tursiops_truncatus.svg]). I've tried hard looking and the best keyword seems to be "30th parallel project" but the press aren't writing about it and it is too soon for books. It is WP:OR. Congratulations on the expedition, by the way. Best to keep clear of the Bermuda Triangle. Thincat (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• to Thincat:

::"there are a lot near where I live at 57°N" - I like your irony, actually dolphins and whales are spreading in the whole world ocean )) But here we are talking about unique "coincedencies": for example, the Pacific Ocean is great, but once a year thousands of humpback whales are meeting at the north of Hawaii (30th parallel : ) and so on.

::"I've tried hard looking and the best keyword seems to be "30th parallel project" - as I understand, one of the main reasons for deleting is too much information about Project, so ok, i will reduce it to the minimum

::"but the press aren't writing about it" - because it's non-commercial project! I guess, you perfectly know the rates for the articles in the modern glossy magazines. I collect all the links, which the project have for now; actually, there are some short documentary but, unfortunately, Wiki is blocking youtube... Here the important one (collect it, throwing out @ and spaces): http:// y @ ou @ tu. @ be/9qR7tz3C_04 (A word to the World by EmbassyDolphin)

::"Congratulations on the expedition, by the way. Best to keep clear of the Bermuda Triangle". - Thanks a lot! Join us via facebook )))

• an appeal to all: Also, the project's humanitarian mission is supported by the eminent scientists, artists and public figures, such as: Jean Houston, Amit Goswami, Ashok Khosla, Slava Polunin, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Graeme Kelleher, Stanislav Grof and Djivan Gasparyan - should I mention it for the better understanding of it's importance and non-profitable format?

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

::Comment - whether it's commercial or non-commercial, profitable or not, is irrelevant. What you need are reliable and neutral sources to back up your claims. Also, address the issues of WP:FRINGE by showing an objective view, i.e. the fact that the phenomenon is not accepted by everyone. Bazonka (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• to Bazonka:

::"address the issues of WP:FRINGE by showing an objective view, i.e. the fact that the phenomenon is not accepted by everyone" - thank you for this advice, but the phenomenon was discovered recently and I didn't find reviews for this account in the scientific literature yet. The expedition is also sharing the information about the phenomena and collecting the opinions on this matter.

::"What you need are reliable and neutral sources to back up your claims" - I did my best in source-finding, but it's all, what I have for now ))

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think people might be surprised at my scepticism, but might I suggest perhaps that the reason the 30th parallel phenomenon hasn't apparently been featured in publications might possibly be because no such real phenomenon exists? Controversial, but this sounds a bit like ley lines. Could it be that things line up by accident, when you have a lot of things, and a lot of possible lines to thread through space? Also, dolphins are intelligent animals. Might it be that sometimes some humans aren't so clever? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment to Comment of Barney the barney barney:

::you can be 200% skeptic, but you can't deny the obvious facts - please, take your time and check once more the list of the "key objects" - they are all with the geo-coordinates, found in the GoogleEarth.

::"Could it be that things line up by accident, when you have a lot of things, and a lot of possible lines to thread through space?" - surely it could be, but the number of artifacts is too large for regular coincidence, that's the topic!

::"Also, dolphins are intelligent animals. Might it be that sometimes some humans aren't so clever?" - in the top ten! : )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

::: Oh wow, I realise the controversy over what I'm suggesting: some scientists and historians are beginning to question what other people assertions. I mean, they say things like "correlation does not imply causation", and expect people to actually believe this?!?!?! Whoa, these radicals!!!! I mean, a pretty elementary understanding of probability and statistics might prove not only that "200% scepticism" is an impossible position, but could also point out that coincidences occur with strong probability, whether dolphins are involved or not. The intelligence of some humans is clearly lacking. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• delete First two parts are Original research, third, apparently unconnected part is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• to everyone Just transform "The expedition" section into the last paragraph in the "Hypothesis" section and deleted the link to the expedition's web.

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• to DGG: Thanks, now it's totally clear! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soderjanie Pustoti (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Not verifiable. WP:FRINGE requires fringe science topics to have coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow Wikipedia to cover them in a neutral and in-depth way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• to Colapeninsula

::"Not verifiable." - are you joking?! Take the world map and check all the locations (coordinates are in the article) - the number of artifacts is too large for regular coincidence.

::"[WP:FRINGE]] requires fringe science topics to have coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow Wikipedia to cover them in a neutral and in-depth way." - you are right, but the phenomenon was discovered recently and it's a young hypothesis too. There is no reviews for this account in the scientific literature yet. The expedition is also sharing the information about the phenomena and collecting the opinions on this matter.

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:::No, I don't think (s)he is joking. Yes, all of those artifacts are near the 30th parallel, but calling some of these "artifacts" is a bit tenuous - dolphins near Hawaii for example. Of course, there are plenty of historical sites (and dolphins) that aren't near to the parallel. How do you explain those then?

:::And you admit that there is nothing in scientific literature about this "phenomenon". The fact it is new is not a valid argument. There are plenty of notable new things that are documented and have Wikipedia articles. Without necessary sources (whether new or not), then this struggles to meet WP:N. Maybe one day, if there is sufficient coverage, then the article can be recreated, but we're not there yet. Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

to Bazonka

::"...but calling some of these "artifacts" is a bit tenuous - dolphins near Hawaii for example." — it's good that you mention the Hawaii, cause once a year thousands of humpback whales are meeting there - [http://www.shelltonewhaleproject.org/?lang=en this person] (one of the prime experts in the world in the field of communication with whales) is more than 20 years is exploring this. Is it still tenuous? : )

::"Of course, there are plenty of historical sites (and dolphins) that aren't near to the parallel. How do you explain those then? " — name me of at least one the same latitude or longitude, which was located along a similar cluster (OK - twice less : ) of such kind of objects. The secret is that they are no more.

:::Without taking too close a look, Porto, Madrid, Naples, Thessalonica, Istanbul, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, Tashkent, Beijing, and New York City are pretty much all on the same line, a line that also goes through the Northwest Pacific coast (dolphins), Redwood National Park (tallest trees in the world), Great Salt Lake, Salt Lake City (center of a religion), Dinosaur National Park (fossil beds that revolutionized our view of dinosaurs), Rocky Mountain National Park (10,000 + year old pathways over mountain passes), Platte River (several hundred thousand sandhill cranes stopover there on their annual migration), Mississippi River, Hopewell culture mounds in Indiana and Ohio, Meadowcroft Village (one of the oldest archaeological sites in the Americas), and in Eurasia it probably intersects the Great Wall, (throw out a few if they aren't close enough, and you still have a whole lot) this is not looking like all that unique of a situation. There is another line that goes through Cardiff, St Albans, Cologne, Denisova Cave, Lake Baikal, the Aleutians, Calgary, Hudson Bay, L'Anse aux Meadows, etc. The real take-home message is that human activity across the ages is thick on the ground in a wide belt - any line is going to intersect a lot. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

::"Without necessary sources (whether new or not), then this struggles to meet WP:N. The fact it is new is not a valid argument." — I agree, but the fact that even a kid can take the world map and see how all this unique cluster of ancient objects (and dolphins / whales locations, etc.) are aligned - it's the main and real argument! Rules are not working without exceptions and here I see exactly this case - to check this phenomenon you don't need to read a dozen of historical monographs and scientific publications, just take the map, have a look on it and you will see it by yourself. And after try to find something similar - and you will see, that it's unique! : )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:::Soderjanie, you appear to be operating under two misconceptions. First, regarding verifiability/notability, the question is not whether the individual sites are notable, or whether they are on the 30th parallel. Yes, anyone can look at a map and see where places are located. The issue is whether the phenomenon is notable/verifiable. Telling us to 'look at a map' is not the proper response. We as Wikipedia editors don't get to look at a map and draw our own conclusions - that would be Original Research, and is forbidden. Rather we need to have sources that have done this analysis and published it. Is there a body of literature that talks about the 30th parallel phenomenon? If not, then it is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, no matter how true the geographic location of each individual site may be. Second, this is not a discussion between you and everyone else. You need not, and you probably should not, be responding to every comment. The more you respond to each and every editor, the more it makes this look like this is your page. Make your best, well-reasoned argument, and let that stand. Any further clarifications should be short, to the point, and made sparingly. You are doing yourself no favors by responding to every comment. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete...well, another WP:FRINGE? here we go. Not WP:V, clear WP:OR, no third-party sources - fails WP:N as far as I can tell. Ansh666 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete : )

It seems, that only I see this belt on the world map. So, finally, anyone, Delete this long-suffering page, please.

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

::Again, this is not about whether any other editor can see this belt. It is about Original Research - Wikipedia is not a repository for phenomena that its editors notice. It is a repository for things that have drawn the attention of academics and reliable media. We don't observe, we summarize what others have observed. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR. And also untrue, there is no evidence of a large number of unicorns along the belt. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

to History2007 (talk)

::* Aha, I was thinking about it too... Unfortunately, they are much higher - I'll create the article about the phenomenon of 70th parallel a little bit later : P

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. The assertion that this “concentration” of sites is “unmatched” and “cannot be explained by mere coincidence“ is completely unsupported, but is a key premise of the entire “phenomenon“. Reliable sources are needed reporting evidence for this claim, with objective criteria for inclusion of sites and a statistical analysis of their distribution. Nothing of the kind has been brought forward here, not even as OR (which might be replicated elsewhere), just hand-waving. The “Hypothesis“ is a fringey fairy-story, and “The Expedition Project“ adds a promotional tone to the global-vibrations gobbledegook. Oh, and per nom. and Agricolae.—Odysseus1479 03:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

:P.S. A good half-dozen of the places listed are not even situated within the stated latitude range.–Odysseus1479 05:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

::* to P.S. from Odysseus1479

:::name me, please, these "A good half-dozen of the places" )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

::According to the latitudes given in the article, which I haven’t cross-checked elsewhere: Alexandria, Marrakesh, Essaouira, Gulf of Sidra, Jerusalem, Qumran, Multan, Amritsar, and Shanghai are all north of 31°5'. No latitude is given there for the Bahamas, but the northernmost island in the country, Grand Bahama, is at 26°39', well south of 28°5'. Although Midway and Kure Atolls, just within the zone at 28°12' and 28°25' respectively, are part of the Hawaii–Emperor chain, calling them Hawaiian islands is a bit of a stretch; Hawaii proper is south of the Tropic of Cancer.—Odysseus1479 09:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This article is based on a theory from some guy explained in an essentially self-published book. It's all the result of cognitive bias. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong delete - not just :WP:FRINGE, but obscure and unnotable fringery, without even the usual predatory promoters who make nut-bar theories like :indigo children notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:25, 22 May 2013 (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.