Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August &#9742; 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith
I am at a loss with what to do with these kind of articles. Nobody with an academic background in archaeology has read these books and so there are no peer-reviewed journal articles stating why this man is wrong. I have looked. This is because no archaeologists take the man seriously. NPOVing this necessitates having a deeper knowledge of the subject than any current wikipedian I have encountered. Please read this article and suggest what to do. adamsan 23:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio of the Official Website, perhaps? TheMadBaron 11:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Made a couple of changes to try to add some NPOV-ness. The book's a bestseller (sadly) and an entry on it should be preserved - keep. Vizjim 13:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs a bit more work - mostly layout, not me this time, though. Alf melmac 13:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable book. Vizjim, where did you get the info that this book is a bestseller?  I cannot corroborate that.  From what I see it is around 1,000,000th rank on Amazon (US) and 14,207 on Amazon (UK).  I'd let poorly researched "non-fiction" like this stand though if someone can cite this book as a bestseller.--Isotope23 18:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Info's from memory. I've now researched it and (thank your space-faring deity of choice!) this particular book didn't top the charts in the way some of Hancock's earlier ones did.  Must've confused one with t'other.  However, non-notability is not necessarily a condition of deletion, and the author is undoubtedly significant.Vizjim 10:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but work on it. — Phil Welch 22:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable archaeology book. / Peter Isotalo 00:47, 18 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.