Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Drama of the Lost Disciples (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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The Drama of the Lost Disciples
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This book does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT. From searches, this source provides some coverage, but other sources are only providing passing mentions (e.g., ). The first AfD discussion in August 2011 was closed as no consensus, with only two total contributors. North America1000 15:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As the article's creator, I quite agree it should be deleted for lack of nobility, as well as for the reason I gave when I nominated it the first time: its (well-intentioned at the time) attempts to point out the multiple inaccuracies of the book's contents are original research. I don't think there's anything salvageable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unsure Scholar seems to show that the book has been referenced or cited in multiple places, so I suspect we should care enough about it to note it somewhere, especially if its thesis has been adopted by a minor (yet disturbing, but that's not Wikipedia's problem) religious worldview. I don't think deletion is the right course of action, but I'm unsure where else this would be best covered. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well... it all depends on where it's being cited. For example, the book is mentioned in this work, however it's published by Tyndale, a religious publisher. Religious publishers are kind of iffy because they don't always go through the type of editorial oversight that Wikipedia requires, although Tyndale is one of the most major and easily recognized publishers so this could possibly be usable. I also need to note that the book said that the work is generally not accepted, so if it is merged anywhere this will need to be done carefully and selectively. Now all of that said, I'm not really seeing a whole lot out there for this work. I'm checking my college databases and there's nothing coming back that can be used to establish that this is a noteworthy or groundbreaking work as a whole. It's mentioned here or there, but in places we can't use like a letter to a newspaper editor. The only truly usable thing I've seen is a doctoral thesis where the work is mentioned in a few footnotes, which is helpful but not nearly enough to establish notability by that source alone. I have one or two last places to look, but offhand I'm leaning towards a delete rather than a merge. There's so far little coverage and what is out there is fairly brief and relatively tepid. I'm generally getting the impression that it was known within the religious community but overall dismissed by most. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked around. Most of the coverage is in indie and self-published books that Wikipedia would not consider to be reliable at all. I did find this blog post, but since it's a blog and not a newspaper article, it's a SPS. There were some other links like this one that kind of fall under the iffy category since I'm not sure how reliable the publisher would be considered on Wikipedia. Publishers that put out religious themed works are always kind of tricky since so much of what's published is based on personal opinions than thesis work, for instance. Now what makes me think that this could be potentially merged somewhere is this mention in a McFarland book, which would be considered a RS on Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to a merge, but the question here would be where to merge and how much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * your "other links like this one" is published by WestBow Press, which although part of a respectable publishing firm is a self-publishing press: "Our self-publishing company is designed to empower you to fulfill your dreams and reach your goals." Doug Weller  talk 14:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that the website seemed a little hinky. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep -- There is a lot of this sort of thing about, but it is at best pious fantasy, essentially fiction. All of this is unsubstantiated rubbish, but there is a significant body of such historical fiction.  The article clearly exposes the work for what it is.  This has the merit of telling people that it is a tissue of lies, built around some truth.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. the article is an extended presentation of nonsense. Mentions in a book, when the total available information is that it is listed as one of the hundreds of references in the bibliography, do not show notability. The actual contents of the book must be examined. The argument for keep, above, is that the genre is notable--and so it is, but not the individual work.  DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- per article creator, the page contains mostly WP:OR and should be removed on these grounds. If someone wants to create an article based on scholarly sources, all the power to them. Thus, the page should be deleted without prejudice to creating a replacement article until such time arrives. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG, lack of coverage in reliable sources. Doug Weller  talk 12:22, 31 August 2016 (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.