Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics

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. Any merge discussions can take place on the article's talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [1]. Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles. --Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spencer's views are controversial and not taken seriously by scholars to the best of my knowledge; he also runs a website that contains material that's arguably Islamophobic, as well as legitimate material. Most importantly, he isn't notable enough to have so many pages devoted to his views; the descriptions of his books can be added to his biography. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you know, the views of holocaust "revisionists" are controversial and not taken seriously by anyone... controversy only helps the article be worthy. Cannibalicious! 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The controversial topics could be always addressed in articles like "Criticism of X". --Aminz 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seems odd to nominate Robert Spencer's books since they are quite notable and controversial and have gotten extensive media coverage. As far as spencer, he is very notable considering he appears on the media very frequently on the major networks.--CltFn 13:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book has relieved enough media attention to be notable. A few reviews: [2] [3] [4] -- Karl Meier 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not particular to this book. There are thousands of thousands books which are reviewed. --Aminz 13:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are thousands and thousands of books that has received enough (media) attention to be notable. And the problem with that is? -- Karl Meier 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can wikipedia, being a scientific Encyclopedia, have a page on each of them? It is like having a page for each university professor around the world. --Aminz 14:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can. having more information can only benefit teh wikky.

No it isn't. Every university professor around the world is not a notability. -- Karl Meier 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I may interject: including every university professor or every book in the world most certainly violates WP:NOT, as Aminz has noted. However, there is nothing wrong with having 1000s of notable books on WP, given that tens of millions of books have been written throughout human history. Just because there are 1000s of something is no reason to exclude them from WP: for example, heads of state, battles, chemical compounds, etc. Oh, and keep. Black Falcon 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep (per above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannibalicious! (talk • contribs)
Delete per SlimVirgin. Jyothisingh 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karl Meier Kyaa the Catlord 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Robert Spencer and redirect. (1) The fact that Spencer's scholarship is questionable (if true), is not relevant to deletion. (2) Wikipedia:Notability (books) is fairly broad, as is the general notability standard -- assuming that at least two of the reviews Karl Meier notes qualify as significant, reliable sources, the book meets the limited notability criteria. (3) However, on the gripping hand, there is no point to the stub -- per Wikipedia:Article series, it would be preferable to redirect to Spencer's own page unless there is too much verifiable information to contain on that page, at which point the material can be spun back out. TheronJ 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is every book by this author up for AFD? Is this a POINT issue or something? Or someone not like the author or his viewpoints? F.F.McGurk 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An author can be the biggest scumbug on Earth, or a complete unscholarly (verifiable!) moron. None of that has anything to do with the merit of an article's existence covering his work. Why are editors even mentioning those? F.F.McGurk 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article about the author, since there has never been more than a book jacket blurb of an articvle. Nothing to prevent a proper article from being created in the future.The standards that only books as notable as Dante, the Bible and the Koran are worthy of articles does not agree with Wikipedia notability policies, and the arguments that the author is wrong and controversial do not address notability. Edison 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination that does not cite policy in its deletion reasoning. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). The argument by analogy with Britannica is also outside of policy, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The argument against the author's "scholarship" is a content dispute and does not belong at AFD. If the author believes a merge is warranted, use appropriate templates for that proposal.--Dhartung | Talk 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as clearly notable book by a NY Times Bestseller; is the nominator trying to make a WP:POINT by this and similar nominations? Tarinth 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unverified, empty article (verging on CSD A1), completely fails to assert any notability or encyclopedic value. If there are reliable sources added to the article, if it expands beyond its current form as a library card catalog entry, and if content asserting any notability or encyclopedic value is added to the article, I may reconsider. Agent 86 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article is a stub and says nothing. But I will change my vote if article has some content.--Sefringle 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Bad faith nom. Arrow740 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the book is thououghly debunked makes it no less notable. After all, We have an entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and these books are about the same as far as accuracy and honesty goes. --John Kenneth Fisher 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, without prejudice, per Sefringle. John Vandenberg 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per slimvirgin. not every single book should appear in WP. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case the book seems significantly less notable than many other Spencer books nominated. I got about 979 hits without Google, but I get over three hundred for Dragons Lexicon Triumvirate so that's not too impressive.--T. Anthony 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge -- Not enough for its own article, but add to the article on the author, rather than delete all together. Pastordavid 23:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If I were acting as closing admin (which I won't be as I've voted myself) I would count this as a merge and redirect vote. We normally keep merged articles as redirects, both to aid navigation and to preserve the edit histories. Is this your intention? No change of vote. Andrewa 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spencer has had several books high on the NYT bestseller list recently, and he doesn't write all that many books. - Merzbow 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views.DGG 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Book by bestselling author, whose bestsellers have also been nominated. Nomination and delete votes appear to be motivated purely by POV. Andrewa 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia policy on books is not that restricted. Being controversial (Hitler's War), racist (Mein Kampf), or discredited (The Destruction of Dresden) are not grounds for deletion. Edward321 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Bad faith nomination, however the article at the moment does not assert independent notability. Shouldn't lose redirect as this is a likely search term. JASpencer 09:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has now been significantly developed --CltFn 13:29, 15 January 2007 (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.