Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jesus Puzzle

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 merge and redirect. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Puzzle[edit]

Non notable book with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is notable enough to warrant attention from this, this, and this site, all of which tear it apart piece by piece. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commet Those are websites, I do not understand how they can pass as reliable sources that establish notability. Is the book published by a major publisher and does it have reviews from scholars in notable journals? There is a need for reliable sources that confirm notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the philosophical opponents of the book have taken notice of it in order to refute it is prima facie evidence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem with the sources mentioned by Blanchardb is that they're self-published websites. To establish that this book is notable, we need to have reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the book--most websites won't qualify. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Earl Doherty article. The combination is notable, but I don't see the need for two articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Delete Possible merge to Earl Doherty, if reliable sources are provided. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)~~

Note: This vote cast by person who made nomination, so admin closing the vote should be careful not to double count.DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Earl Doherty. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Certainly notable on a topic becoming more and more discussed in larger society. Some merging being possible, but I've seen too many times people try to use "merge/redirect" votes as if they were "delete" votes as an excuse to delete the information and/or while counting for alleged "consensus". DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with merge -- If we keep the Chick Tracks article whose 90 references are all self published (more than 90% from Jack T. Chick's own website) then certainly we should keep the Jesus Puzzle article (which as far better references) with it being merged with Earl Doherty. In fact, I would like to know why given the self published nature of its references Chick Tracks is not marked for Deletion as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion is about The Jesus Puzzle. Other stuff exists is not a suitable reason to keep this one, nor is its converse a reason to try to delete another article (which of course you are free to nominate separately). Frank | talk 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Earl Doherty. Not that much material in The Jesus Puzzle article, I doubt it warrants its own article. As mentioned by others, the combination seems notable enough.--Boffob (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Earl Doherty per Boffob. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: above view is the second one given by the nominator, in addition to the nom itself. Frank | talk 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote from delete to Redirect and merge to Earl Doherty. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Author. Book is not notable enough for article itself. Make into section redirect.Yobmod (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (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.