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) TheSpecialUserTSU 01:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've improved the article a lot to meet all criteria. The book is highly notable and has influenced a lot of people. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now.--Rafytalk 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been cleaned up, although some of the neutrality issues may need to be addressed per History2007. The subject has been covered by multiple secondary sources, and sufficiently meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester(t) 22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but.... The page needs to make it clear it is not a mainstream idea. Look at Allegro's other book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross and it rightly says it was described as "notorious and as one of the strangest books ever published on the subject of religion and pharmacology". That is "Allegro land". So this one was not as crazy as that, but still is far, far from mainstream, and should reflect that if it is to survive. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've mentioned "numerous rebuttals" and "some consider bizarre", which I consider a fair reflection of mainstream opinion. You may add to it if you like, but that's about all I see fit to write. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.