Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Gilbert

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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There do not exist enough independent sources to establish the requisite notability for this fringe BLP. jps (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of enough independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Presently utterly deletable, but I've pinged fringe enthusiasts on my Facebook to see if there's anything of note about him - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Orion Mystery received quite a lot of attention, but his co-author Robert Bauval, who later teamed up with Graham Hancock, seems to receive the majority of the credit. IIRC there was some media interest following the BBC’s being found unfair to their pareidolic theories about the Pyramids in a documentry, which was reissued to include their rebuttal. All in all Gilbert must have sold a few million books, but of itself that doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:AUTHOR.—Odysseus1479 19:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's published by Penguin who claim him as a best-seller. There should be sources on him ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: I don’t see him mentioned at all in pages about the BBC controversy, just Bauval & Hancock, so apologies for the ‘garden path’. His 2012-Mayan-apocalypse work has attracted lots of blogging & user-contributed reviews, but no RS that I can find so far. His website went offline around 2011; I browsed a bit through the last useful Wayback Machine capture in search of press links without finding any.—Odysseus1479 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching JSTOR turns up one slightly promising lead, if anyone has a subscription to the Atlantic: a review of the January 2000 cover story (of which I can only see the title and tagline) briefly discusses his mention there, characterizing him as a “popular paranormalist”. Also found: one brief, dismissive review in The Furrow, brief mentions in Folklore (on the London Stone} and Isis (in a review of Ed Krupp}, and listings in Science’s “Books Received”. Cites for these minor mentions available on request, if anyone thinks they might be useful.—Odysseus1479 23:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches have found nothing better and there's nothing else noticeably convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice - he's someone there should be coverage of, but nobody's managed to find it and we really can't have a BLP without it - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2016 (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.