The result was Keep - consensus is that while it may be about a junk theory, it is notable and needs cleaning up rather than deleting. Yomangani talk 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Please see the debate on Talk:Odyssey about whether or not this book meets notability requirements. I am nominating it for that reason. Also, note that Anthony Snodgrass, a well respected arechologist and Homeric historian refered to this book as an example of lackluster scholarship and his thesis as 'infinitely less serious' than most things out there, which scholars don't even think is worth the time to refute. text here. I, for my part, will remain Neutral right now until I see and participate in some discussion. CaveatLector Talk 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
. Others have written about it with a more sympathetic tone [4] but the overwhelming opinion from respected archeologists is that Wilkens' theory is easily debunked. Still it has some sort of cult following and this is exactly what the article should discuss. That being said, it probably falls somewhat short of WP:BK but not dramatically so either. Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - consensus is that while it may be about a junk theory, it is notable and needs cleaning up rather than deleting. Yomangani talk 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Please see the debate on Talk:Odyssey about whether or not this book meets notability requirements. I am nominating it for that reason. Also, note that Anthony Snodgrass, a well respected arechologist and Homeric historian refered to this book as an example of lackluster scholarship and his thesis as 'infinitely less serious' than most things out there, which scholars don't even think is worth the time to refute. text here. I, for my part, will remain Neutral right now until I see and participate in some discussion. CaveatLector Talk 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
. Others have written about it with a more sympathetic tone [4] but the overwhelming opinion from respected archeologists is that Wilkens' theory is easily debunked. Still it has some sort of cult following and this is exactly what the article should discuss. That being said, it probably falls somewhat short of WP:BK but not dramatically so either. Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply