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). WilliamH (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Scroll[edit]

The Jesus Scroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There is no assertion of proper notability ("bestseller", "forerunner to Da Vinci Code") that is supported by any evidence whatsoever. If this book was such a bestseller, the WP article should not be the second hit after the Amazon listing (which states it was only, not "first" published in 1973) if it was such a big deal, followed by a bunch of blogs, with all significant hits < 20. Not only is the book discredited, but the lawsuit regarding the source of Da Vinci was brought by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which postdated this book by ten years. so the forerunner claim isn't supported either. The author article was created by the same person as created this article, and pretty much states that this is the book he wrote, so the notability (written by author notable enough for WP) is false there as well. MSJapan (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with the author (who has an independent third-party biography and who I think qualifies as meeting WP:BIO because of it.) I am less sure about the book, but this article has at least a brief mention of it (on page 3 or page 10 depending on whether you are counting numbered pages or actual pages.) There might be more, but I haven't made a very thorough search on Google. This book appears to be the author's main work however, so if the book is not notable enough for a separate article, then it should get some coverage in the article on the author. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added sources according to WP:N. I an not an expert on the book or subject, so if the nominator feels there are factural issues with the article they should edit, not queue it for deletion. I might also point out that the book itself has been used as a citation on google scholar. Fosnez (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the book was an international best seller and influential in its day. Dreamspy (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article's starter - I obviously think the subject is notable and the references show it to be. Jack1956 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added the extent of the coverage in some of the sources cited, and thus far it's pretty trivial. For some reason I cannot access the Time article (which from search results seems to be a list of top books in 1973) or the Amazon search (likely temporary ISP problem), and for the book to be in the Times Literary Supplement 15 or so years after it was published (and likely OOP) strikes me as strange, so I have asked for clarification from the editor who added that particular ref. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Donovan Joyce - the Australian Dictionary of Biography Online doesn't specify which best-seller list it might have been on. Most likely the entry was written by the author or publisher. The other references have merely passing mentions. Where are the multiple in-depth references and/or reviews? This book simply did not achieve notability as it is defined on Wikipedia. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just wanted to point out that the fact that the book was sold in the early 1970s and is now out of print is going to make online reviews very hard to come by. Fosnez (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Of the three, one of the refs is one of a long list of recent sensationalist fiction about the life of Christ (The Tyndale Books PDF), and I'd gather the same is true of the "Essays in Christology" as part of it traces what people have been saying about Christ in various eras. The last is from a piece called "Is Jehovah an ET?" I'd consider the first two refs trivial, and the last fringe. Generally speaking, the references occur in a "if we create a list of psuedohistorical works about Jesus we get..." pattern. furthermore, as Fosnez notes, the lack of reviews and such makes proving either its sales status or its impact very difficult indeed, and there is thus no way to assert the book's notability other than anecdotally. I think a good indication of its non-notability, however, is the fact that it's apparently OOP after just one hardcover edition. A similar book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is still readily available in multiple editions 25 years after it was published. I think it's a fair comparison - not every book on the same subject is going to be notable. MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment according to Amazon's review of the book, 18 books cite The Jesus Scroll as a source/reference. Surely that makes it notable? It is cited as a source for Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which of course was an 'inspiration' for The Da Vinci Code, hence it is a 'forerunner' of that book. Also, after the hardback first edition mentioned above it went through several paperback editions during the 1970s. [1] Jack1956 (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to be a well-referenced book and an early source of ideas that later became more well-known in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Not that it couldn't do with some improvement, but that's no reason to delete the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Yes, it is pseudohistory (and should be clearly labled as such), but it is notable pseudohistory. It was the first of what is now a clear subgenre of sensationalist pop-historical speculative works. That said... the article needs extensive work. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per recent upgrades to the article, it looks good. WP:V and WP:N seem to be achieved.--Pmedema (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2008 (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.