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]
Do not comment on the editor. Comment on the content. No one's "'vote' is irrelevant", unless they only have 6 edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's fair game by Stonemason89...
User: I.. is obviously extremely biased in regards to I-P conflict issues, as evidenced by the ranting, alarmist content of his user page (which I have nominated for speedy deletion). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[5]
Dallas hero1989 (talk) 03:12, 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 [6] Abdul Hadi Palazzi line on whom the book is based is about a notorious Muslim cleric interpertations. Showing outside links like [7] 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.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:rs101 has won my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying the book discusses a specific cleric does not convey its notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ret Prof: I notice you seem to vote "Keep" on many, many AfDs, typically with 1-line explanations. I was wondering if you could take some time here to elaborate on why you think this specific book meets WP notability requirements? --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, RS101's "argument" is frankly pathetic. It consists of a google search on Sheikh Palazzi (not on the book. And not that google searches establish anything but if one puts "Sheik Palazzi" in quotes, as one should, you get under 6,000 hits, which is miniscule) and a review on Arutz Sheeva, a propoganda outlet for the settler movement. So nary a reliable source there.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems non-notable. Can recreate later if its gets Reliable third party coverage. Probably could have been speedy deleted as it does not make any assertion of notability.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a strange case. Nominator is right, the book isn't accessible in the libraries and I can't find an entry on WorldCat. On the other hand, there are quite substantial reviews/interviews published by IsraelNationalNews.com (Arutz Sheva), weeklyblitz.net (Weekly Blitz). I'm not sure if the religious websites opentheword.org and jesus.ch (in German) count as reliable sources, but in my opinion it is possible to compile an informative article about this book. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book isn't notable, why should we cover it at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NBOOK, #1: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. I think the book meets this criterion, as it was noted by various newspapers/websites mentioned above. The book is new, its absence in libraries isn't surprising. It is a borderline case, of course, but I think it is worthy of inclusion. It's just my opinion. I'm not familiar with the complicated political context. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]