- 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 redirect to The Jesus Mysteries. Note that The Jesus Mysteries may in turn require improvements, and there's some question about whether it's actually notable, but that can be dealt with in another AfD if somebody desires. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Peter Gandy (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP of an author. Before is showing nothing that would satisfy nauthor. One webpage described him as a mysterious author about which nothing is known. Tagged for notability since 2015. Szzuk ( talk) 15:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- delete Too minor. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Skeptical. I'm not finding any scholarly book reviews. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and rename Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy I did find reviews in Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly and there's a Baker and Taylor biography that describes both. Apparently Freke has also appeared on History channel. I added some reviews but since all of the books are co-authored, I think they should both be on the page. @ E.M.Gregory: what do you think? Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 23:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- We don't have an article on Timothy Freke. We do have one on their book, The Jesus Mysteries. If that's considered notable (it's not overwhelming either way) then I'd be OK with a merge there. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pairing them on a page makes sense. The larger problem, as I see it, will be wording the article to make clear that these are two fringe/cranks who write pseudohistory. The Jesus Mysteries is a poster child for the problem we have with crank writers who use WP as advertising space. I just tagged it for fringe, and notability - a quick look makes it look as though the sources have been stretched to PROMO the book. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- So delete all three. If the book passes WP:NBOOK then I'd be happy to keep it, with two redirects to it, and even any relevant BLP on the authors there. I'd like to know his background and what makes him an authority on this subject. So far we seem to have "He has an MA" and a publication list. But, as we all know, notability for the book relies on secondary sources, not just circular comments from the authors. Do we have enough of that? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with a redirect/merge to The Jesus Mysteries. I'm on the fence with regard to the book's notability but as it isn't currently up for deletion it is a credible target. Szzuk ( talk) 17:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- redirect to The Jesus Mysteries as the only thing these two have done thet may be notable, even though in its current state it is a page in need of a severe vetting. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:33, 20 January 2019 (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.
- 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 redirect to The Jesus Mysteries. Note that The Jesus Mysteries may in turn require improvements, and there's some question about whether it's actually notable, but that can be dealt with in another AfD if somebody desires. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Peter Gandy (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP of an author. Before is showing nothing that would satisfy nauthor. One webpage described him as a mysterious author about which nothing is known. Tagged for notability since 2015. Szzuk ( talk) 15:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- delete Too minor. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Skeptical. I'm not finding any scholarly book reviews. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and rename Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy I did find reviews in Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly and there's a Baker and Taylor biography that describes both. Apparently Freke has also appeared on History channel. I added some reviews but since all of the books are co-authored, I think they should both be on the page. @ E.M.Gregory: what do you think? Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 23:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- We don't have an article on Timothy Freke. We do have one on their book, The Jesus Mysteries. If that's considered notable (it's not overwhelming either way) then I'd be OK with a merge there. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pairing them on a page makes sense. The larger problem, as I see it, will be wording the article to make clear that these are two fringe/cranks who write pseudohistory. The Jesus Mysteries is a poster child for the problem we have with crank writers who use WP as advertising space. I just tagged it for fringe, and notability - a quick look makes it look as though the sources have been stretched to PROMO the book. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- So delete all three. If the book passes WP:NBOOK then I'd be happy to keep it, with two redirects to it, and even any relevant BLP on the authors there. I'd like to know his background and what makes him an authority on this subject. So far we seem to have "He has an MA" and a publication list. But, as we all know, notability for the book relies on secondary sources, not just circular comments from the authors. Do we have enough of that? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with a redirect/merge to The Jesus Mysteries. I'm on the fence with regard to the book's notability but as it isn't currently up for deletion it is a credible target. Szzuk ( talk) 17:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- redirect to The Jesus Mysteries as the only thing these two have done thet may be notable, even though in its current state it is a page in need of a severe vetting. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:33, 20 January 2019 (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.