Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith (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   no consensus. However, this article has existed for over three years with no significant improvement whatsoever, and no verification of its claims about the book, leaving significant verifiability problems. I'm going to be bold here and redirect it to Graham Hancock. The content will remain in the history if anyone wants to merge or even restore the article, but it should be cleaned up and should cite some sources if so. Chick Bowen 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable fringe book by pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock. No sources and violates WP:UNDUE. Was kept per "no consensus" in September 2005, but still only has one source which is the book's webpage. We66er (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Somewhat more obscure than the two books mentioned above, with just 188 Worldcat hits and very little of substance at Google News. Still, we might as well make some use out of it. Redirect to Graham Hancock. Redirects are cheap. Zagalejo^^^ 07:15, 8 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)
 * Weak Keep - There are several gnews hits from subscription sources so can not tell the level of detail. and the book is cited in the following books: ,,.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you add a few WP:RS to the article and demonstrate notablity? Five trivial mentions and "Psst... wanna buy a secondhand conspiracy" aren't convincing. We66er (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think WP:UNDUE applies here. If archaeology or architecture repeated the claims of the book and treated them as mainstream, I'd have a problem on that basis.  But this article is merely reporting the existence of the book for its own sake.  Same would go for Velikovsky.  I'm not !voting keep at this point because I'm not convinced on notability.Matchups 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable piece of self-publicism from Graham Hancock. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * May one enquire what evidence there is that the entry was: A) created by, or b) ever substantially edited by, Mr.Hancock ?  Or is your objection that Mr.Hancock has had the gall to publish a book ?  -- HenriLobineau (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
 * My point is that Graham Hancock writes a lot of books like this, so the existence of yet another one is not a fact which is notable independently from any consideration of his work in the general article Graham Hancock. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 18 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.