Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Templar Revelation (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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Templar Revelation
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable mess of original research, with no sources and no evidence of notability Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  03:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The current article is certainly a mess, but I'm not convinced that flat out Deletion is appropriate (unless we're going for a WP:TNT argument) because the book does appear like it might actually be notable. There are a number of sources that mention or discuss it, either as part of criticism of the fringe theories it claims or discussing its connection to The Da Vinci Code, and a quick search brought up at least one, full length review of the book from the time of its release, from CNN.  I'm leaning towards Keeping and cleaning up over deletion, right now. And, at the very least, I would think that a Redirect to Lynn Picknett would be preferable to deletion.  Rorshacma (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Going with a definitive Keep after the coverage presented by Cunard below. Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - the book is certainly notable, under WP:NBOOK 1 and 3. It also comes up in work on medievalism - for example, there's an entire chapter on it by Hannah Johnson in Mass Market Medieval (ed David Marshall, 2007). I'm not sure what the WP:OR issue is supposed to be here. This is effectively a "plot summary", as far as I can tell, simply listing their conclusions. That's not "original research". It doesn't present the fringe theory as fact, either. If the OR issue is the "perspectives" section, well, it's two lines long - I don't think anyone will be outraged if someone removes that bit. -- asilvering (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can read some of Johnson's work at . Doug Weller  talk 17:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any more of the "for instances" that would satisfy NBOOK 1? I don't see how it would meet NBOOK 3. All I've found is this CNN book review. Also, today I learned that CNN used to do book reviews. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - First, the article needs a substantial re-write. While including a brief synopsis of the book’s thesis/plot is appropriate, it should not take up the bulk of the article (as it does here).  A lot more attention needs to be given to what reliable sources say about the book (ie reviews and critiques).  The question is: do such reviews and critiques exist?
 * If not, we would have no choice but to delete - as we can not have an article that cites NO reliable sources (at all). If the necessary sources do exist, another option is to draftify (ie move it temporarily to WP:DRAFTSPACE until it can be brought up to snuff, and then return it to MAINSPACE).  I could support either option. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage:  The book review notes: "For this reviewer it's all a load of manure, but if your scene is a tight, well-written romp pursuing bewitching and imaginative speculation through the byzantine corridors of history, and you want an escape from our present-day, equally byzantine, political magicians, then it's a thoroughly enjoyable read."  The book review notes: "This is not a book for which serious academic claims can be made but it is not entirely without value, because it attempts (sometimes successfully) to put puzzling historical events into an understandable context and to raise important questions about the beginnings of the Christian church."  The book review notes: "Nothing in "The Templar Revelation" rises to anything like the level of "definite proof". Instead, its conclusions are based on the flimsiest of premises which are supported by the slimmest of indirect and circumstantial evidence or, just as often, by the assertion that the lack of evidence justifies their conclusions."  The book is extensively discussed on pages 126–139. The book notes: "As one of the few alternative histories mentioned by name in the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code, The Templar Revelation has recently received an increased measure of attention as a source of the novel's major themes, but I would like to suggest that the Revelation's larger arguments about the trajectory and assumptions of our culture have inspired readers more than any specific revisionist claim advanced in the book. The Middle Ages loom large in this work as the hyperreal source of modern traumas and yearnings, but Picknett and Prince also echo the concerns of contemporary academics who have sought to rethink the monolithic characterization of medieval Europe advanced in traditional historiographies." </li> <li>Less significant coverage:<ol> <li> The book review notes: "Tackling everything from the Turin Shroud to Leonardo, this book is a ripping good yarn. The fact that it is complete bunkum is all part of the fun."</li> <li> The article notes: "The Templar Revelation by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. The runaway success of The Da Vinci Code has inspired a great interest in the Knights Templar and other secret societies. In this book, which largely covers the historical background of The Da Vinci Code, Picknett and Prince explore the mysteries of these groups and their role in European society."</li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Templar Revelation to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.