Joseph Atwill – Unprotect and allow recreation Any editor is free to create new articles and/or redirects at these titles. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joseph Atwill (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) New references available to support notability JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Since the 2007 decision, Atwill has continued to accumulate references in reputable sources as well as individual blogs, and his book was translated into German and published by Ullstein Buchverlage. Contrary to the original decision, Ulysses Press is also a reputable publisher in the field of spirituality. Atwill's book, Caesar's Messiah, continues to be a best-seller in its category, and it is covered in an article in German Wikipedia. While many reviews are negative, the importance of his work is in some ways vindicated by the vehemence of the opposition.[reply] Here are links to secondary sources on Atwill's work. 'Reputable Sources' http://www.villagevoice.com/film/caesars-messiah-rome-invented-jesus-new-doc-claims-6436318 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/story-of-jesus-christ-was-fabricated-to-pacify-the-poor-claims-controversial-biblical-scholar-8870879.html http://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/geschichte/interview-jesus-war-den-kaisern-eine-hilfe_aid_356977.html http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/146983.das-kreuz-mit-dem-heiland.html http://community.zeit.de/user/berndkoch/beitrag/2008/12/25/das-christentum-eine-propagandaluege-der-flavier http://www.ullsteinbuchverlage.de/nc/buch/details/das-messias-raetsel-9783793420910.html 'Notable Critics' (That is, these critics have their own Wikipedia bio articles) http://ehrmanblog.org/conspiracy-nonsense/ http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm http://freethoughtnation.com/a-conversation-on-the-caesars-messiah-thesis/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664 Atwill citations already on Wikipedia -- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Messias-Rätsel (nice article in German) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_conspiracy_theory (link in 'other reading' section) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia_Lanier (link in footnotes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory (bullet point, but no link, in 'Documentaries' section) The original delete decision was entered by BorgQueen. I posted a deletion review request to her user talk page six days ago, and there has been no response, although BorgQueen has been active on Wikipedia editing other articles since then. Thank you for your attention, JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Still no comments? My understanding was that this article was put on the list of items protected against creation, but now I have also read here that the pre-2008 protection system may be deprecated, and I don't know if it's still in effect. Wikipedia editorial policy as discussed here would permit the article to be re-created without administrative action. I suppose if I don't hear from anyone, I'll try to create the page and see if the system will permit it. JerryRussell (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirect Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah. Author Joseph Atwill's book Caesar's Messiah was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar's Messiah in 2008. This article from The Independent, this article from the Discovery Channel, this article from the International Business Times, this article from The Christian Post, and this article from The Huffington Post are primarily about the subject's book. Since most of the sources discuss the book and its ideas, I recommend allowing recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirecting Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah until there is significant biographical information about Atwill. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Remove protection. It's been long enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment after 8 years this should pretty much automatically be unprotected, I can't really understand why it was protected in the first place, one recreation and instant long term protection I would certainly hope wouldn't happen today. That said I'd note Cunard's comments above on what the appropriate article should be, and of course any created article is still subject to further deletion scrutiny. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Unrprotect, Hullaballoo makes the case more directly than I might have. It's my guess that Cunard's suggestion will be the final outcome, but that would best be left to a discussion at the article after recreation. --joe decker ^talk 21:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comments If we undelete one article , it should be the article on the person. If someone is known primarily for one book, there's a chance for expanding the bio, for they may write another, but the book article has no real prospect of expansion . I also point out that blog postings about a book or an author are not published book reviews, no matter who wrote them. The deWP article is in my opinion a disgrace, for it is totally without 3rd party sources -- what I think it shows is that they never noticed it, for they usually do very much better than that. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I don't really understand the substance of the first part of this. If the author suddenly becomes more notable for writing more books etc. then there is nothing to stop the article being spun out as a full blown article at that point, we don't need to worry about an undetermined future now. I'm not saying an article on the author would be wrong, but I can't see how incorporating it with the book for now would be wrong either. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Question At the moment, Atwill has self-published another book, many blog articles, and podcasts. However, little if any of this activity has achieved much notice in reputable published sources. Accordingly, I assume that such materials wouldn't contribute to his notability at the present time, nor would they be suitable topics for Wikipedia? If this is correct, I'm inclined to agree with Joe and Cunard that the article about Caesar's Messiah would take priority. In light of the "Undue Weight" guidelines, I also agree it would be best to stay with one article for now. Question DGG says that reviews in blogs are not published, which is true. However, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." This seems to imply that blogs by authors regarded as authoritative may, in some cases, be used. In this case, the subject book should be classified as a work of popular nonfiction, which is notable because it has been discussed in several reputable journalistic sources. However, those discussions tend to be rather superficial, while the most perceptive reviews of the book are in those blogs by authoritative authors. They also give a more balanced view of the book's reception. Accordingly, if it's OK to use those sources, it will be possible to write a much better article. --JerryRussell (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Joseph Atwill – Unprotect and allow recreation Any editor is free to create new articles and/or redirects at these titles. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

New references available to support notability JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Since the 2007 decision, Atwill has continued to accumulate references in reputable sources as well as individual blogs, and his book was translated into German and published by Ullstein Buchverlage. Contrary to the original decision, Ulysses Press is also a reputable publisher in the field of spirituality. Atwill's book, Caesar's Messiah, continues to be a best-seller in its category, and it is covered in an article in German Wikipedia. While many reviews are negative, the importance of his work is in some ways vindicated by the vehemence of the opposition.[reply]

Here are links to secondary sources on Atwill's work.

'Reputable Sources'

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/caesars-messiah-rome-invented-jesus-new-doc-claims-6436318

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/story-of-jesus-christ-was-fabricated-to-pacify-the-poor-claims-controversial-biblical-scholar-8870879.html

http://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/geschichte/interview-jesus-war-den-kaisern-eine-hilfe_aid_356977.html

http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/146983.das-kreuz-mit-dem-heiland.html

http://community.zeit.de/user/berndkoch/beitrag/2008/12/25/das-christentum-eine-propagandaluege-der-flavier

http://www.ullsteinbuchverlage.de/nc/buch/details/das-messias-raetsel-9783793420910.html

'Notable Critics' (That is, these critics have their own Wikipedia bio articles)

http://ehrmanblog.org/conspiracy-nonsense/

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm

http://freethoughtnation.com/a-conversation-on-the-caesars-messiah-thesis/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664

Atwill citations already on Wikipedia --

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Messias-Rätsel (nice article in German)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_conspiracy_theory (link in 'other reading' section)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia_Lanier (link in footnotes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory (bullet point, but no link, in 'Documentaries' section)

The original delete decision was entered by BorgQueen. I posted a deletion review request to her user talk page six days ago, and there has been no response, although BorgQueen has been active on Wikipedia editing other articles since then.

Thank you for your attention, JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments? My understanding was that this article was put on the list of items protected against creation, but now I have also read here that the pre-2008 protection system may be deprecated, and I don't know if it's still in effect. Wikipedia editorial policy as discussed here would permit the article to be re-created without administrative action. I suppose if I don't hear from anyone, I'll try to create the page and see if the system will permit it. JerryRussell (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirect Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah.
Author Joseph Atwill's book Caesar's Messiah was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar's Messiah in 2008.
This article from The Independent, this article from the Discovery Channel, this article from the International Business Times, this article from The Christian Post, and this article from The Huffington Post are primarily about the subject's book. Since most of the sources discuss the book and its ideas, I recommend allowing recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirecting Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah until there is significant biographical information about Atwill.
Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove protection. It's been long enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after 8 years this should pretty much automatically be unprotected, I can't really understand why it was protected in the first place, one recreation and instant long term protection I would certainly hope wouldn't happen today. That said I'd note Cunard's comments above on what the appropriate article should be, and of course any created article is still subject to further deletion scrutiny. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrprotect, Hullaballoo makes the case more directly than I might have. It's my guess that Cunard's suggestion will be the final outcome, but that would best be left to a discussion at the article after recreation. --joe decker ^talk 21:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments If we undelete one article , it should be the article on the person. If someone is known primarily for one book, there's a chance for expanding the bio, for they may write another, but the book article has no real prospect of expansion . I also point out that blog postings about a book or an author are not published book reviews, no matter who wrote them. The deWP article is in my opinion a disgrace, for it is totally without 3rd party sources -- what I think it shows is that they never noticed it, for they usually do very much better than that. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the substance of the first part of this. If the author suddenly becomes more notable for writing more books etc. then there is nothing to stop the article being spun out as a full blown article at that point, we don't need to worry about an undetermined future now. I'm not saying an article on the author would be wrong, but I can't see how incorporating it with the book for now would be wrong either. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question At the moment, Atwill has self-published another book, many blog articles, and podcasts. However, little if any of this activity has achieved much notice in reputable published sources. Accordingly, I assume that such materials wouldn't contribute to his notability at the present time, nor would they be suitable topics for Wikipedia? If this is correct, I'm inclined to agree with Joe and Cunard that the article about Caesar's Messiah would take priority. In light of the "Undue Weight" guidelines, I also agree it would be best to stay with one article for now.

Question DGG says that reviews in blogs are not published, which is true. However, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." This seems to imply that blogs by authors regarded as authoritative may, in some cases, be used. In this case, the subject book should be classified as a work of popular nonfiction, which is notable because it has been discussed in several reputable journalistic sources. However, those discussions tend to be rather superficial, while the most perceptive reviews of the book are in those blogs by authoritative authors. They also give a more balanced view of the book's reception. Accordingly, if it's OK to use those sources, it will be possible to write a much better article. --JerryRussell (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archaeological Society of Slovenia – No action taken. The nominator never clarified what he was requesting, so closing this with no specific resolution. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Archaeological Society of Slovenia (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The AfD was closed as no consensus, but the article still has the notability tag. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Is there a specific request you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Well, AfD showed that the article topic meets the GNG but the article itself is in a bad shape and should be improved. Still, this is not a reason for deletion. --Tone 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I believe you may be mistaken: the AfD was closed as "no consensus" (no decision on notability), not "keep" (subject is notable). Anyway, as the AfD is closed, I can't see a looming deletion threat. Rebb ing 05:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Constant relisting is a bad idea, and the participants were unsure about whether there were more sources in Slovenian, so no consensus was the appropriate decision, as it allows time for editors to find sources. Esquivalience ^t 20:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Can the nominator clarify what precisely he/she wants done here? Stifle (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archaeological Society of Slovenia – No action taken. The nominator never clarified what he was requesting, so closing this with no specific resolution. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The AfD was closed as no consensus, but the article still has the notability tag. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific request you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AfD showed that the article topic meets the GNG but the article itself is in a bad shape and should be improved. Still, this is not a reason for deletion. --Tone 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may be mistaken: the AfD was closed as "no consensus" (no decision on notability), not "keep" (subject is notable). Anyway, as the AfD is closed, I can't see a looming deletion threat. Rebb ing 05:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Constant relisting is a bad idea, and the participants were unsure about whether there were more sources in Slovenian, so no consensus was the appropriate decision, as it allows time for editors to find sources. Esquivalience ^t 20:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator clarify what precisely he/she wants done here? Stifle (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.