Deletion of Megalithic geometry

Comment: The , , and "gaming wikipedia for notability in real life" issues surrounding these articles are clouding my judgment, but I think that a merger of some of the content to Alan Butler would be acceptable, provided it is done carefully. However, I would object to merging with Megalithic yard or any of the other "established" fringe theories as they might bestow some their notability onto this more dubious fringe notion, violating . I suppose such a merger could be done right, but the undue thing won't even be an issue if merged and presented as a part of the an Alan Butler article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:SOCK||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: If sensational, gee-whiz fringe theories receive independent coverage in tabloids, radio shows, or TV programs, this establishes their |notability for our purposes.  This remains true even if one wishes it were otherwise.  The article establishes at minimum that a French publisher printed this stuff.  It does seem rather scattershot, and ranges from megalithic monuments to the Phaistos disc without really connecting the two, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: the whole walled garden. Per , I'm not seeing the mainstream attention to these fringe theories that would make them notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: to the article for . Perhaps it is pseudoscientific object, but sometime a real scientist needs info about similar objects for criticism, for historical review etc. For example, the article phlogiston theory should be kept as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)