Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
No indication of notability. No awards won, no sources cited, no press coverage. Author doesn't seem to be especially notable. Book therefore seems to fail WP:NB CultureDrone (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, I was able to find a couple of non-trivial references to it by reputable news organisations: [1], [2], [3]. I think it may just be enough . Lankiveil (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge – How about a merge to Muhammad: a Biography of the Prophet they seem to go hand in hand and are by the same author. Shoessss | Chat 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Karen Armstrong. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The book reviews from the International Herald Tribune and New York Sun that Lankiveil links to show that this article passes WP:BK #1 "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Bláthnaid 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tidied the article and added some information. Bláthnaid 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Without a doubt, keep it. Why should it be deleted? It should be wither merged or kept, not deleted.--Ohmpandya (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "No awards won, no sources cited, no press coverage." is not a criterion for deletion. However, the book has been reviewed by many newspapers contradictory to the claim. ~atif Talk 04:44, 1 January 2008 (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.