Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Message of the Sphinx


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Message of the Sphinx

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable fringe book by pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock. No sources and violates WP:UNDUE. We66er (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm not sure how exactly to establish whether this passes WP:BK, but there are at least two mentions in the New York Times, though they are somewhat cursory. Amazon points to some reviews of the book. But otherwise it isn't clear-cut to me. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It received some mainstream coverage, is in at least 746 libraries, and is a best-seller of some sort. So, I think the book has some legitimate claims to notability. At the very least, we should convert the article into a Redirect for Graham Hancock (though with some cleanup, it can be a Keeper). Zagalejo^^^ 06:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the links others have found, it appears to be a notable fringe book by a pseudoarchaeologist. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here are a few reliable sources to show that this book passes WP:BK:
 * Scott, Whitney. "Media: Audiobooks." Booklist 96, no. 2 (September 15, 1999): 277., Abstract: Reviews several audiobooks on history. ......`The Message of the Sphinx: The Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind,' by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval;
 * Stuttaford, Genevieve. "Forecasts: Nonfiction." Publishers Weekly 243, no. 25 (June 17, 1996): 56., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Message of the Sphinx: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind,' by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.
 * There are more, a simple search on google books shows this book is notable. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So the book has two reviews and was mentioned in two other books. Can you improve the quality of the article and demonstrate notablity? We66er (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The reliable sources provided in the AfD discussion are to show that the article subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BK. We are trying to determine if the article topic is notable not necessarily re-writing the article during the AfD discussion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually improving the aricle with things claimed in the sources would do a better job than just a list of, in some cases inaccessible without purchase, of sources. We66er (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make is that the main purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine if the article passes the relevant notability requirements. It's great if someone has the knowledge of the topic, access to the sources and the time to improve the article.  Determining notability of the article and improving the article are two separate tasks and our main task at an AfD discussion is to determine notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: I took your point. My point, on the other hand, is despite the two reviews and two books that you say mention it, the article is still without sources and still has not asserted notablity after a year and a half. If its notable then spend 5 minutes and show us. Just saying its been reviewed in two publications isn't convincing of notablity. We66er (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make is that the main purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine if the article passes the relevant notability requirements. It's great if someone has the knowledge of the topic, access to the sources and the time to improve the article.  Determining notability of the article and improving the article are two separate tasks and our main task at an AfD discussion is to determine notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: I took your point. My point, on the other hand, is despite the two reviews and two books that you say mention it, the article is still without sources and still has not asserted notablity after a year and a half. If its notable then spend 5 minutes and show us. Just saying its been reviewed in two publications isn't convincing of notablity. We66er (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep—Passing the notability guidelines for books is rather convincing of notability. As bad as books like these may be, the fact that their content is pseudoscientific is essentially irrelevant. Ardric47 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2008 (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.