The result was keep. The editors arguing to keep the article have put forth a number of seemingly reliable sources that appear to show that Doherty passes WP:GNG, and no one was able to refute that those sources are reliable. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:GNG and WP:BIOfor information on notability guidelines.
Non-notable blogger and pop counter-apologist. Out of all the references, only one is a reliable source:
"Ehrman, Bart D (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperCollins. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8."
That book is primarily about New Testament sholarship, and countering those who counter that Jesus did not exist. I have not read it mind you. But it seems to discuss Earl Doherty's ideas, but he is only one of many. It's not the kind of indepth third party source that is needed.
Many of the arguments used in the previous debate are a good example of WP:AADD.
Strong Keep - an article on a person at the center of a religious controversy that has all these links is at least as notable as characters in some video games
Notability is not inherited. The controversy might be notable, but individual people involved in it might not be. Also referring to other pages is not relevant. Each page needs to stand on its own.
There are 20,000 google hits for <"Earl Doherty" Jesus>.
Google hits are irrelevant. What is relevant is third party sourcing.
-Regarded as one of the ="pillars" of the modern Jesus Myth concept.
Which is irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. The topic might be relevant, and perhaps he should have a sub-section in the Christ myth theory article, but not that he should have his own article.
There were a few more sources listed:
I'm not sure if any of these count as reliable third party sources. Many of them are small atheist publications, and not more neutral third party sources.
Moving onto some of the other criteria. For WP:ANYBIO, he fails both #1 and #2. He's won no such award, and the Jesus Myth Theories have existed for centuries before his contributions. If you go by WP:NACADEMICS he also fails. For #1, as I said JMT have existed for some time. He does have an advanced degree, and he has only been published in one minor journal, Journal of Higher Criticism which is of questionable reliability. I question how rigorous the peer review really is, and how major a historical journal it really is. His most notable contribution so to speak, seems to be one of those criticized by Bart Ehrman in his 2012 book Did Jesus Exist?. He also fails criteria #2-9. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. The editors arguing to keep the article have put forth a number of seemingly reliable sources that appear to show that Doherty passes WP:GNG, and no one was able to refute that those sources are reliable. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:GNG and WP:BIOfor information on notability guidelines.
Non-notable blogger and pop counter-apologist. Out of all the references, only one is a reliable source:
"Ehrman, Bart D (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperCollins. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8."
That book is primarily about New Testament sholarship, and countering those who counter that Jesus did not exist. I have not read it mind you. But it seems to discuss Earl Doherty's ideas, but he is only one of many. It's not the kind of indepth third party source that is needed.
Many of the arguments used in the previous debate are a good example of WP:AADD.
Strong Keep - an article on a person at the center of a religious controversy that has all these links is at least as notable as characters in some video games
Notability is not inherited. The controversy might be notable, but individual people involved in it might not be. Also referring to other pages is not relevant. Each page needs to stand on its own.
There are 20,000 google hits for <"Earl Doherty" Jesus>.
Google hits are irrelevant. What is relevant is third party sourcing.
-Regarded as one of the ="pillars" of the modern Jesus Myth concept.
Which is irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. The topic might be relevant, and perhaps he should have a sub-section in the Christ myth theory article, but not that he should have his own article.
There were a few more sources listed:
I'm not sure if any of these count as reliable third party sources. Many of them are small atheist publications, and not more neutral third party sources.
Moving onto some of the other criteria. For WP:ANYBIO, he fails both #1 and #2. He's won no such award, and the Jesus Myth Theories have existed for centuries before his contributions. If you go by WP:NACADEMICS he also fails. For #1, as I said JMT have existed for some time. He does have an advanced degree, and he has only been published in one minor journal, Journal of Higher Criticism which is of questionable reliability. I question how rigorous the peer review really is, and how major a historical journal it really is. His most notable contribution so to speak, seems to be one of those criticized by Bart Ehrman in his 2012 book Did Jesus Exist?. He also fails criteria #2-9. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)