346:
tumbled into such confusion that you had to look once, and again before you saw what lay under your eyes; the stones were very large, and there was no trace of lime about them, and this may have been a rude outpost of the tribe for the defence of the great living spring, perhaps, also of Llecan, lying far below. Be that as it may, here was the very choicest spot on the river for such a stronghold as the
Brigantes would build."
279:. This page was created by a sock-puppet of a blocked user who created a whole bunch of UK archaeology stubs in April 2013. Many of his contributions were subsequently deleted. I tried my best to clean-up (or move/merge/redirect) the remainder of his stubs (some of which were notable sites) but this one stumped me. The source originally used was a book by the neo-pagan "antiquarian"
302:. As stated on the talk page, the fan sites refer to a 19th-century report on an almost obscured stone circle near Backstone Beck. I can't find this online, including in JSTOR, but it is cited in at least two books on the archaeology of the area; can anyone check it? Collyer, R. and Turner, J.H., "Letter upon some early remains discovered in Yorkshire",
359:" is an old spa about 1km to the northwest. But it is not clear that the writers are referring to these "Backstones" (there are several other stone circles and cairns on Ilkley Moor.) Without any archaeological investigation, even just a field survey, it seems hard to justify this page being on Knowledge (XXG).
404:(at most) -- The photo on the linked ref clearly shows an archaeological site of some kind. The question is what, which is debateable. My larger question is whether WP should have an article on every site that may be in the Local Historical Environment Record, particularly when it is unclear what it is.
422:
The photograph on the one site plainly shows a couple of dry-laid walls among the individual stones, and comparison with aerial views suggests a more accurate location but also shows that the two walls encompass most if not all of the site. I cannot see even hinting that this might be a megalithic
345:
The relevant page in the 1885 book seems to be page 18, where the authors discuss prehistoric Ilkley, which the authors seem to think might have been called "Llecan" in pre-Roman days. They state that "there was still a rude circle of rocks on the reach behind the old White Wells fifty years ago,
261:
The only definite hits are aficionado sites whose testimony is contradictory and plainly based on a lot of supposition. The only book reference mentioned positively does not call any site by this name. The coordinates in the article match none of those given by external sites, nor do any of them
383:. Personally I do not think that a letter/article in an 1846 journal and a vague statement in an 1885 book are enough to go on; as Pasicles says, there are consistent problems throughout as to whether anyone beyond the fan sites is talking about the same thing.
459:, have nothing on this "stone circle", but they have entries for the other stone circles, cairns, rubble walls, and standing stones in the area. There is a history of sites being messed around with on Ilkley Moor (read the pages on the
262:
agree with each other. One of the on-line sources suggests that the site may be a fake. I'm not inclined to endorse even the possible existence of this site by giving it an article, not without something scholarly.
327:. Okay I've taken a look. There is in fact an 1846 "Letter upon upon some early remains discovered in Yorkshire" by J. M. N. Colls, and an 1885 book "Ilkley: ancient and modern" by R. Collyer and J. H. Turner.
166:
52:. I always loved Julian Cope...but....his music more than his writing. :-) Thanks everyone for their comments and thoughts, and please assume good faith with each other and with this closure.
336:
The 1846 letter vaguely talks about "numerous vestiges of earth-works" which "intersect
Baildon Common" and at one point mentions "circles of stones" but says nothing else about them.
238:
119:
380:
218:
160:
201:
as self-published, even they aren't certain about this. Can't find any reliable sources. If nothing else this is clearly not notable enough for its own article.
423:
site without some qualified authority to endorse that view. As it is, the same site recounts some local knowledge claiming that it is nothing of the kind.
126:
456:
17:
467:). I doubt we can justify having a page on a stone circle which might just be a few large boulders someone has moved around.
460:
92:
87:
96:
181:
520:
148:
40:
79:
442:
409:
142:
57:
516:
311:
36:
138:
501:
476:
446:
432:
413:
392:
368:
315:
292:
271:
250:
230:
210:
61:
246:
226:
206:
83:
174:
188:
472:
438:
405:
364:
288:
451:
AFAIK this site is not listed in any official archaeological record. The two primary databases,
437:
The question is really whether we should have an article on a site whose nature is so unclear.
75:
67:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
515:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
428:
388:
307:
267:
497:
242:
222:
202:
198:
154:
468:
360:
284:
379:
If you really want to know, you can get a copy of the letter direct from
Cambridge
283:. I could find no proper archaeological sources, so I agree it should be deleted.
113:
424:
384:
356:
280:
263:
493:
464:
452:
509:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
492:. Gotta love sock puppets. Oh hang on, I meant shoot them.
109:
105:
101:
173:
197:Article created by a sock puppet, sources all fail
187:
239:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
523:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
237:Note: This debate has been included in the
219:list of England-related deletion discussions
217:Note: This debate has been included in the
236:
216:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
540:
502:20:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
477:19:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
457:The National Heritage List
447:17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
433:19:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
414:17:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
393:19:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
369:18:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
316:15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
293:14:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
272:12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
251:11:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
231:11:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
211:09:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
62:00:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
512:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
48:The result was
253:
233:
531:
514:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
539:
538:
534:
533:
532:
530:
529:
528:
527:
521:deletion review
510:
461:Twelve Apostles
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
537:
535:
526:
525:
505:
504:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
417:
416:
398:
397:
396:
395:
374:
373:
372:
371:
350:
349:
348:
347:
340:
339:
338:
337:
331:
330:
329:
328:
319:
318:
296:
295:
274:
255:
254:
234:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
536:
524:
522:
518:
513:
507:
506:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
487:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
439:Peterkingiron
436:
435:
434:
430:
426:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
406:Peterkingiron
403:
400:
399:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
375:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
344:
343:
342:
341:
335:
334:
333:
332:
326:
323:
322:
321:
320:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
297:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
273:
269:
265:
260:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
511:
508:
489:
401:
324:
304:Archaeologia
303:
299:
276:
258:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
54:SarahStierch
49:
47:
31:
28:
357:White Wells
308:Yngvadottir
306:31 (1885).
281:Julian Cope
161:free images
465:Grubstones
243:Necrothesp
223:Necrothesp
203:Dougweller
76:Backstones
68:Backstones
517:talk page
453:Pastscape
402:Weak keep
37:talk page
519:or in a
469:Pasicles
463:and the
381:for $ 30
361:Pasicles
285:Pasicles
120:View log
39:or in a
325:Comment
300:Comment
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
490:Delete
425:Mangoe
385:Mangoe
277:Delete
264:Mangoe
259:delete
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
494:Szzuk
355:The "
199:WP:RS
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
498:talk
473:talk
455:and
443:talk
429:talk
410:talk
389:talk
365:talk
312:talk
289:talk
268:talk
247:talk
227:talk
207:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
189:TWL
118:– (
500:)
475:)
445:)
431:)
412:)
391:)
367:)
314:)
291:)
270:)
249:)
241:.
229:)
221:.
209:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
496:(
471:(
441:(
427:(
408:(
387:(
363:(
310:(
287:(
266:(
245:(
225:(
205:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.