Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rohl


 * 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 redirect to New Chronology (Rohl). The "keep" opinions are mostly not based in policy, but the redirect is an obvious alternative to deletion.  Sandstein  20:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

David Rohl

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Page seems to be to promote an amateur psuedo-academic and as a WP:Soapbox for fringe theories. This "Egyptologist" has only a BA, and even that is only sourced from his own CV. Apparent credentials such as former director of some "Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS)" appear to be fluff. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History,  and Egypt. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep "academic" is no criterion for anything. The man is notable for his publications and pointing out flaws in conventional chronologies of the ANE. The discoveries of other archaeologists he shifts into focus are relevant and accurate. The circumstance that his conclusions are not convincing and sometimes outright wrong (often because of accepting religious narratives as sources), or that he has not published any new material in quite a while does not merit a deletion. If you want to point out errors and weaknesses in his work, then alter the article. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 11:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP You're argument is a fallacy of authority and a no true scotsman fallacy. David Rohl can read, write and think. Just because you're not an English major doesn't mean you can't use English. 2003:FC:3F05:7E08:5849:4F94:60FB:D74A (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication subject passes WP:GNG. Almost all of the sources are non-independent. Of those that aren't two reviews, one gives him just passing mention, the other is detailed but in a 'journal' that is closer to a newsletter of a group of hobbyists with very low circulation and no reputation for scholarship. I am not seeing notability here. Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete His ideas are fringe. I do not think he meets our criteria for including articles on proponents of fringe ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability, including WP:PROF which has much stricter requirements than just "multiple" sources, depends on independent reliable sources taking notice of the subject's work. Does either of the editors giving a "keep" opinion have evidence of this? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. While looking up this name in the JSTOR data base, I found an article written by him: . It seems to me that his work in the field of Egyptology meets the standard of notability and is worthy of Wikipedia.Davidbena (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing written by the subject can contribute to notability. It's what has been written by others about the subject or his work that counts. I note that Google Scholar only reports four citations to that paper. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as the person who devised New Chronology (Rohl). His chronology is controversial, but while that article exists (as it should do), it is appropriate to have an article on its author.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to New Chronology (Rohl). WP:FRINGE theorist not independently notable from his fringe theories. Unlike many fringe theorists, we do have mainstream sources properly calling this work out as fringe, preventing a WP:NPOV problem, but they're just going to lead to the same content here as at the chronology article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Strong Keep - Though un-PhDed so are a lot of other people. He is notable as a scholar, an author, a journalist, a lecturer, a television presenter, a musician, a music producer, and he is cited—if often to discount his ideas—in numerous articles, book reviews, and websites on biblical chronology, Egyptology, and the like.  He appears in documentaries, e.g. Patterns of Evidence.  He is thus notable by many measures. This appears to be a recent attempt to drive out views and persons considered WP:FRINGE by a user who started this nomination in a rather derogatory manner with some apparent malice: see diff.  Though not welcomed by mainstream academia, his page here is cited, wiki-linked, and has been around for years now.  WP:NOTPAPER - Wikipedia has room for such sourced articles of such figures as Rohl. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tuckerresearch. Also, plenty of RS here to justify the page (and I added 2 more). Cabrils (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- - Strong Keep -- This is a noted author and researcher who has made many salient points on his chosen subjects. To try and remove all references to a person, their work and influence because you don't agree with his viewpoints is censorship and a crime against academic principles.  What are these folks afraid of? As his published work and the many papers, articles and persons supporting or criticizing his work are on the internet and not going away, any researcher, reporter or author will need this page to properly inform themselves or their readers facts about the person so they may consider his qualifications in reference to his work. Noneofubusiness (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to New Chronology (Rohl); we don't need articles on both the person and the one thing the person is known for. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.