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. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Doherty[edit]

Earl Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable. Five years on Wikipedia and no reliable sources. Non notable author. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - an article on a person at the center of a religious controversy that has all these links is at least as notable as characters in some video games
  • Acharya S
  • Dan Brown
  • Docetism
  • Doherty (surname)
  • Earl (given name)
  • George Albert Wells
  • Gospel of Thomas
  • Historical Jesus
  • Historicity of Jesus
  • Jesus
  • Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
  • Jesus myth hypothesis
  • Josephus on Jesus
  • Ki Longfellow
  • Lee Strobel
  • List of books about Jesus
  • Robert M. Price
  • The Bible and history
  • The God Who Wasn't There
  • The Jesus Mysteries
  • The Jesus Puzzle
    • There are 20,000 google hits for <"Earl Doherty" Jesus>. I am no fan of Doherty or his thesis, and the article does need some sourcing, but the relevant deletion that should happen is this proposal for deletion instead --JimWae (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After being on Wikipedia for 5 years alows a lot of time for adding many links. Also, there is no substancial independent coverage. As is, this article lacks notability and reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia links aren't evidence of notability. We need substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Five years and no reliable sources. Also, author of a non notable book. As a non notable person with no reliable sources to establish notability, this page should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with reservations, and possibly with The Jesus Puzzle merged into this article. The subject does not seem to be directly notable in his own right, but the numerous ghits for both him personally and for his work I think merits having a page to at least discuss The Jesus Puzzle and his other works, and an article on him as an individual is as good a place as any for such content. And the book is I think notable as this review from American Atheism's online edition seems to indicate. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review also appeared in the print edition: vol. 39, no. 1 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 43-45. That's one reliable source; we generally want two or more. Are there more out there? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep-Regarded as one of the ="pillars" of the modern Jesus Myth concept. A merging with The Jesus Puzzle is definitely warranted as there really is not enough there for two separate articles. As for the second source how about the peer review journal the original The Jesus Puzzle appeared in? If that is not enough I found him, his book, or web page referenced by Zuckerman, Phil (2003) Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, Ricker, George A (2006) Godless in America: Conversations with an Atheist, Gibson, Stephen L. (2007) A Secret of the Universe: A Story of Love, Loss, and the Discovery of an Eternal Truth, and Bennett, Clinton (2001) In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. George Albert Wells includes some critical comment on Doherty in an article published in New Humanist. That and the American Atheist review cited above imply Doherty's notability at least as a popular atheist/humanist author. The article should probably be merged with The Jesus Puzzle, and could possibly be merged into Jesus myth hypothesis if that article were organised differently. EALacey (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The problem with specialists in a niche field is that very few people outside of that niche have ever heard of them. The real question here is: "Is the Jesus Mythist theory notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia?" If the answer to that question is "yes", then this article on Doherty should remain, because he is generally considered to be the leading exponent of the Jesus Mythist theory. Unlike most who advocate the Jesus Mythist position, Doherty does get some of his material published in academic journals.jonathon (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is clearly notable, as anybody familiar with the Jesus Myth theory would know. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His book was reviewed in Free Inquiry (Unpacking Christ's case Robert Price. Free Inquiry. Buffalo: Summer 2002. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; pg. 66, 1 pgs-- Full text available on ProQuest) Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources about him can be found, ironically, on the websites of his philosophical opponents, of which there is no lack. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above -- deletion vote seems to be for POV-pushing reasons. Those voting keep here may also want to vote on Acharya S, which was also put up for deletion and has even more reason to stay but has not been getting as many votes. DreamGuy (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I have my own misgivings about the sudden deletion vote for Acharya S, Doherty, and the The Jesus Puzzle all on the same day (the last also needs help BTW) the criteria for living persons is so high (much of it for practical reasons) that the narrower the field people cover the more likely they will get axed regardless of how publicly known they are.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I would argue that the field of the historical authenticity of Jesus is not a narrow field. It may seem narrow to those who do not question certain beliefs from birth, but is not so narrow to a growing body of Biblical scholars. And no matter how unknown to the general public, it has far-reaching implications. The only vote here to delete comes from the same source, and repeated. I suspect this is a vote to delete that is not based on notability or cited sources, but on emtotional reactions to the subject matter dealt with by Doherty, who has become the leading voice for this interesting position. As someone said somewhere, we allow comic book characters space, and characters in sitcoms, but get feisty when serious research is put into investigating our religious beliefs?JiggeryPokery (talk) 20:19, 29 June 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.