Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 1421 Heresy

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 23:09 (UTC)

The 1421 Heresy
Delete - appears to be an ad for a vanity publication. The title and the author both return 0 hits on Google. The website does not appear to be associated with any publishing house. Finally, the book has not even been published yet. -- Rlandmann 00:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, though this might be able to come back once the book has been published. -Splash 01:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's another book with the similar idea... but the name eludes me right now. Could this be a translation/different version? -Hmib 03:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The book you're probably thinking of is Gavin Menzies' 1421: The Year the Chinese Discovered the World. This is apparently unrelated. --Rlandmann 07:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment :: This book (although possibly not under this title) has been published in the UK since 2004 (probably earlier -- what I saw was paperback). The theory behind it has been discussed widely in the "more intellectual" talk-shows (although (I suppose) as product-placement arranged by a good agent).  I am not sure if this, therefore, is the right title, but an entry to the theory itself deserves keeping. --Simon Cursitor 06:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There already is an entry to the theory - called 1421 theory, appropriately enough. Average Earthman 08:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge a reference to this book to 1421 theory, delete the remainder. This page is not notable in itself, and the 1421 theory page covers (or could cover) all that is likely to be notable about the subject. Naturenet 11:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: There really doesn't seem anything to merge, since this article is a pure ad. The article doesn't say anything about the theory, just says that there's this book to buy.  The article title is improper for discussing the "controversy" as well. Geogre 11:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't add to 1421 theory. Just an ad. hydnjo talk 00:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete either as either duplicate of 1421 theory or (if not duplicate per se) nn. Kevin/Last1in 01:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.