Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Templar Revelation

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 of the debate was KEEP. -Doc (?) 22:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Templar Revelation[edit]

If this book is pseudohistory, would it not be a good idea to include some sort of scholastic refutation or discussion of the book, instead of just making grandiose claims about it? 24.250.156.178 15:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speedy or otherwise note 24.250.156.178's contribs are edits recently removing rather than improving. This article has been through VfD before and was resoundingly kept. Alf ^melmac 15:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
above copied from Talk:The Templar Revelation, where it was placed, apparently by mistake. Comment: Is this a nomination for deletion or a request to fix the article? If the former, it needs to give some reason for deletion, not just a vague suggestion about how to article might be improved. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment Personally I think it's a bad faith nom, and should be speedy kept, the nom itself wasn't completed in correct manner. Thanks for fixing the pages, couldn't quite see what was going on there. Alf ^melmac 16:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see that it meets any criteria for deletion according to policy, and none is being offered by the complainant. I move for a "speedy keep". --SFDan 16:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... clearly labeled as pseudohistory and written as NPOV as possible. If someone wants to add a "controversy" section with refutation that would be fine, but I don't see anything that merits an AfD.--Isotope23 18:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speedy if possible, apparent bad faith nom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Go ahead and include whatever section you want. No need to to have an AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an important book, and it's important to edit the article to show how far out of the historical mainstream it is. Squibix 15:10, 20 October 2005 (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.