Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cracking the Quran code

Cracking the Quran code

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

This article on a book does not support the book's notability. The three references are not what I would call reliable sources (one is just a copy-paste of the Google Books listing), the external link is useless, and the ISBN number does not show up in any libraries. That and the author has been pushing a POV on Israel and Judaism related articles. I can safely say that Wikipedia does not need an article on this particular publication.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. Sheik Abdul Hadi Palazzi is very notable in general [1] and in books [2], on whom the book is based.RS101 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, delete. DS (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and per nom. Creator may have a conflict of interest (making this possibly spam), as his user page is essentially a duplicate of this article. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'Stonemason89' but your activities does support a certain bias against the Jewish people, here [3] and here [4] Your "vote" is irrelevant.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a brand new book, and it seems to be rather unimportant. Someday in the future, the book may become notable. Also, I don't see many secondary sources referring to the book. If the topic of the book is really significant, there should be other sources discussing the topic, and the material could be put into the Qu'ran article. --Noleander (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shiva (Visnu) 00:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete particularly the "isbn does not show up in any library." That, plus the total lack of independent in depth treatment of this likely self-published book does it for me.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like self promotion, Sadads (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "self"? are you claiming that the author posted it? that's ludicrous.RS101 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well noted [5] Abdul Hadi Palazzi line on whom the book is based is about a notorious Muslim cleric interpertations. Showing outside links like [6] only reinforces the legitimacy reason why it's needed.RS101 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't prove the book is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An putside links does prove it.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No they don't.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per rs101 great argument.Dallas hero1989 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This template must be substituted.