Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Doherty (2nd nomination)

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 keep. The editors arguing to keep the article have put forth a number of seemingly reliable sources that appear to show that Doherty passes WP:GNG, and no one was able to refute that those sources are reliable. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Doherty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please see WP:GNG and WP:BIOfor information on notability guidelines.

Non-notable blogger and pop counter-apologist. Out of all the references, only one is a reliable source:

"Ehrman, Bart D (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperCollins. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8."

That book is primarily about New Testament sholarship, and countering those who counter that Jesus did not exist. I have not read it mind you. But it seems to discuss Earl Doherty's ideas, but he is only one of many. It's not the kind of indepth third party source that is needed.

Many of the arguments used in the previous debate are a good example of WP:AADD.

Strong Keep - an article on a person at the center of a religious controversy that has all these links is at least as notable as characters in some video games

Notability is not inherited. The controversy might be notable, but individual people involved in it might not be. Also referring to other pages is not relevant. Each page needs to stand on its own.

There are 20,000 google hits for <"Earl Doherty" Jesus>.

Google hits are irrelevant. What is relevant is third party sourcing.

-Regarded as one of the ="pillars" of the modern Jesus Myth concept.

Which is irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. The topic might be relevant, and perhaps he should have a sub-section in the Christ myth theory article, but not that he should have his own article.

There were a few more sources listed:

American Atheists (link currently dead)
New Humanist
Unpacking Christ's case Robert Price. Free Inquiry. Buffalo: Summer 2002. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; pg. 66, 1 pgs-- (Full text available on ProQuest)

I'm not sure if any of these count as reliable third party sources. Many of them are small atheist publications, and not more neutral third party sources.

Moving onto some of the other criteria. For WP:ANYBIO, he fails both #1 and #2. He's won no such award, and the Jesus Myth Theories have existed for centuries before his contributions. If you go by WP:NACADEMICS he also fails. For #1, as I said JMT have existed for some time. He does have an advanced degree, and he has only been published in one minor journal, Journal of Higher Criticism which is of questionable reliability. I question how rigorous the peer review really is, and how major a historical journal it really is. His most notable contribution so to speak, seems to be one of those criticized by Bart Ehrman in his 2012 book Did Jesus Exist?. He also fails criteria #2-9. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost all search results are forums or blogs. Very, very sparse coverage in any remotely reliable source, not enough to meet WP:BIO let alone WP:AUTHOR. Jinkinson talk to me 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple reliable sources cited in the article that support notability. Ehrman (Did Jesus Exist?), Wells (Can We Trust the New Testament?, and Casey (Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?) all provide substantial discussion and meet the criteria for reliability and independence (reinforced by the fact that all are critical of Doherty). The reviews from Zindler, Carrier and Price also count toward notability. The fact that an outlet has an ideological perspective does not disqualify it from supporting notability as long as it has no direct affiliation with the subject. That's six entirely non-redundant independent sources already in the article. If more are needed, there is discussion of Doherty in The Pagan Christ, in The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Price again, but a better quality source than the Free Inquiry review), and in Reinventing Jesus. I'm only mentioning substantial discussions that help show notability; there are many lesser mentions and citations. --RL0919 (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not like this article as it is contrary to my POV, but the multiple reviews clearly mean that Jesus Puzzle is a notable book. Since we do not have an article on the book, it is appropriate to have one on the author and his work generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an article about a self-published author and blogger with very few references outside the niche area of the fringe theory he writes about. The few reliable sources there are for him, for instance Ehrman's or Casey's books, dismiss him as a crank who doesn't know what he is talking about.Smeat75 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage per User:Gene93k. Crank's can be notable. -- GreenC 14:13, 24 March 2014 (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.