Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sign and the Seal


 * 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) 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sign and the Seal

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

Unnotable fringe book by pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock. No sources and violates WP:UNDUE. We66er (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although the article needs sourcing, there seems to be plenty of material in reliable sources (see e.g. ) to demonstrate notability. Scog (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to have received a decent amount of media coverage - much more than the Sphinx book. It's also in at least 1000 libraries. With some sourcing and cleanup, it's a solid Keep. At the very least, we should make it a redirect to Graham Hancock. Zagalejo^^^ 07:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a few refs. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As fringe as The Da Vinci Code, so what? Fringe sells. NVO (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Book achieved significant sales and media attention. —12.72.73.68 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article does not assert any of the criteria for notability. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the sources, it appears to be a notable fringe book by a pseudoarchaeologist. Edward321 (talk) 00:04, 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 some reliable sources that show that the book passes WP:BK:
 * Killheffer, Robert K.J. "Finder of the lost ark?." Omni 17, no. 1 (October 1994): 29., Abstract: Discusses the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,' by British journalist Graham Hancock.
 * Clapham, C. "A far-fetched treasure." TLS (May 15, 1992): 23., Abstract: Reviews `The Sign and the Seal: A quest for the lost Ark of the Covenant,' by Graham Hancock
 * Stanford, P. "Grail travels." New Statesman & Society 5, no. 196 (April 03, 1992): 46., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,' by Graham Hancock.
 * Stuttaford, G. "Forecasts: Nonfiction." Publishers Weekly 239, no. 13 (March 09, 1992): 45., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,` by Graham Hancock. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you add some of those to the article and improve it to keepable quality? As of now, the article doesn't insert importance. We66er (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already added three refs to the article. I can't immediately access any of the above, but maybe someone else can. In any case, it should be clear that the topic passes WP:N, even if the article hasn't reached its full potential. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 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) 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I and Zagalejo can't access some of the "sources." Thus, actually improving the article 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) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you can not access the sources, I obtained them via the EBSCO database available through my local public libraries web site. As I mentioned in a similar thread in another AfD we are trying to establish notability of this book in the AfD discussion not necessarily improving the article to include all of the proofs of notability. They are two very different tasks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:51, 11 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.