Giantology: 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 [26] 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 ] Keep , or else 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 ] Delete There 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 ] Just curious, how did you decide it wasn't a neologism? I can't find particularly good sources which identify this as a term of art beyond the downright colloquial -- and even then it is scattershot. Trying to even define the idea seems hopeless as different groups seem to use the term for different ideas. jps ( talk ) 00:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, admittedly sparse 19th century usage. My impression is that it was mostly used derisively, as here in All the Year Round , which is fun reading but nothing to base an article on. "Those crackpot giantoligists, still trying to prove antediluvian giant races..." maybe? By "wasn't a neologism" i just meant it wasn't recently coined. fiveby ( zero ) 04:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gigantology is 1811 in English, earlier in French, and in dictionaries. Maybe should consider giantology as mistaken usage, always read as gigantology ? Anyway some good related content for the main article and a long way from needing a sub-article and a title. fiveby ( zero ) 05:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! Maybe we should transmogrify our WP:NEO rules into something more like WP:PAROCHIALTERM . I'm sure there are obscure words first used by Shakespeare which enterprising agnotology proponents would love to repurpose to their own ends just so that they can declaim a lack of per se neologisticality. :) jps ( talk ) 11:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're getting a bit abstract here, but the reason I called it a neologism is because it is a term appears to have (to quote WP:NEOLOGISM ) little or no usage in reliable sources . Clearly it's not a term that has been recently coined —sticking "ology" on the end of "giant" is not exactly creative writing—but my understand is that, until it gains widespread usage, it's still a neologism as far as our policies are concerned. – Joe ( talk ) 11:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Afd's can often be fun and entertaining, and thanks for this one! I can see List of gigantologies as educational and withing WP's scope. Beginning: A gigantology is an account or treatise concerning giants, mythological, erudite, or satirical... That brings us back to the article topic, there is no giantology , the study of giants, but many gigantologies with some considered scholarly for their time. That is i think the correct context for the reader? I thought L’auteur de cette gigantologie espagnole... by Buffon was pretty creative, and by OR the origin of the term, and paleontologist are referring to the quote when they say 'spanish giantology'.  fiveby ( zero ) 14:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OED (print edition) has gigantology but not giantology.  Brunton ( talk ) 16:53, 18 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 ] Redirect to pseudoscience ; I'm changing my vote.  I'm all for keeping derpy beliefs (past and present) about giants in the encyclopedia, but I'm concerned that the article as it stands gives undue weight to "I'm a giantologist!!" claims without appropriately contextualizing them.  As others have noted the sources are garbage (and one's a Nazi!?!) which would be FINE if they were cocooned in 5x as many other sources that comment to the effect of "this is garbage and here's why: ..."  I think the article as it stands now would tend to reinforce someone's priors of "giants are real bc [waves mythology of choice]" without giving them any real evaluation of what modern "Giantology" is about.  The reason there are no such "debunkings" is because it's so far out there no academic has been motivated to respond.  That may change in the future.  There also might be offline literature we can't find, etc.  But I'm wary that as it stands by maintaining an underdeveloped article with the name "giantology" we're inadvertently collaborating in spreading misinformation .  jengod ( talk ) 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree, especially the last sentence.  Although, that first DYK nom hook for the related Giant skeletons (United States) article was worded in such a way as to imply it might be legitimate didn't seem all that inadverent to me. ([ [27] ])  He iro 19:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a neologism .  This one, thankfully, not coined by Wikipedia, but a neologism without independent notice nonetheless.  jps ( talk ) 00:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Giant , especially the subsection "Archeology and paleontology".  Merging into cryptozoology or pseudoscience , as others have suggested, would also be acceptable.  Whether or not the term is a neologism, it necessarily overlaps strongly with Giant , since that page covers the mythology and history of belief in giants – which is essentially this page in a nutshell.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 08:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it seems to be a neologism not supported by independent notice . The term is not found in acceptable independent secondary sources that discuss this term or use of this term per  WP:NEO (2nd paragraph). And I think using a neologism as redirect is unacceptable. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 08:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It doesn't really fit anywhere else, and it's an interesting subject.  It's also unfair to call it pseudeoscientific, the Giant of Castelnau for instance is a very interesting find.  Lots of serious ancient historical sources describe some set of apparently quite large individuals which were more common in the past.  If we have pygmies , the opposite seems reasonable.  AlphabeticThing9 ( talk ) 00:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't really fit anywhere else because it's nonsense.  Lots of serious ancient historical sources also describe vampires, werewolves, gods, cyclops, and dragons.  They aren't real either.  We do not have articles on vampirology or dragonology for the same reasons, pseudoscientific hogwash shouldn't be given credence just because you think it's "interesting".  He iro 02:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I agree that WP:NEOLOGISM would apply here, as well as the rest of the rationale of the nom.  Onel 5969 TT me 18:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge very selectively with Giants .   That article is largely a survey of the subject in various different cultures.   This might be provided from this article with a little more introduction, by taking some material from the "Investigation of giants" section.   A lot of the rest of the article is a compilation of trivia or fringe material.   Sometimes it is useful to have articles on pseudo-science, whose object is to expose the falsity of the views in question.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 14:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment quite a few delete AfD rationales (including the AfD nomination rationale) have referred to this a neologism, but that ignores the historical use in secondary sources.  Here is a source to show it is not a neologism an editor offered this source to me on my talk page and it is from 1868.  From my own research I am certain this is not a neologism.  Contrary to the nomination rationale (as seen in this reference) there actually is significant coverage for the term throughout a long period of time.  I encourage the AfD ! voters to check out the WP:Neologism policy because many of the deletion rationales appears to be incorrect in regard to this term.  Bruxton ( talk ) 01:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are missing so much by focusing on the word giantology and trying to make it a field of study.  "Giantology and Dwarfiana"?  should WP have the second article also?  Wood was writing a book of curiosities for a popular audience, and by 1868 and the time 'giantology' made it's appearance in english the scientific debate had mostly run it's course.  Some holdouts adhering to the biblical passages in opposition to Cuvier .  Citing Wood here exemplifies what is wrong with this article.  I could replace that with a better citation saying 'giantology' is "a belief in giants", but really the article should just go.  fiveby ( zero ) 05:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This has already been discussed above.  I nominated it as a neologism because it appears to have little or no usage in reliable sources ( WP:NEOLOGISM ), not because it's never been used before.  One book from 1868 doesn't change that.  As for the "significant coverage" you keep asserting is out there, it's been over a week and we're yet to see it, so... – Joe ( talk ) 07:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that the topic is anathema to the editors who came here from the fringe noticeboard, but I did not create Giantology and contrary to Fiveby's statment, I am not "trying to make it a field of study".  Note: the word neologism literally means, "a newly coined word or expression".  So I am surprised that editors would double down on that rationale.  The same editors who are determined to delete this article took over Giant skeletons (United States) .  I am unable to edit either article because a group of editors creates a WP:LOCALCON which can overrule any change or reject any source.  I see Joe's statement above "it's been over a week and we're yet to see it".  FTR I have not edited in over a week, I took some time off which I know Joe saw because he messaging me and another editor on my talk page and I said I was taking a break.  FYI: when I did edit this article I was twice reverted and I was reverted multiple times on the Giant skeletons (United States) article.  Even after saying all of this, I know that everyone here is operating in good faith.  I am sure the closer will sort it out and determine if this is a "newly coined word or expression".  Bruxton ( talk ) 14:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I came here from FTN, and don't dislike the topic at all, but think there is some really great educational content for WP.  It is not a neologism , but as other editors have pointed out it fits squarely within the WP:NEO MOS guideline.  To really understand the topic and what is valuable content you need to go back at least to early 17th century, well before 'giantology' made it's appearance in english sources.  The dialog mostly in french and using gigantologie .  What is and should be anathema to editors is shown in the first two sentences of the article: Giantology is the study of giants.  The study involves mythology, history, language, archaeology and anthropology.  and the citation to Wood in support.  That is a load of crap and indicative of editors following the WP:FRINGE sources rather than reading and understanding the WP:BESTSOURCES .  fiveby ( zero ) 15:35, 24 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete