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. Maxim_(talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Most of the content was merged into Brigitte Gabriel. --Maxim_(talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because They Hate[edit]

Because They Hate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Polemical book that does not appear to meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books) and has no reliable sources to verify notability. I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. I've found a number of mentions in passing, but no actual reviews of it. The mentions in passing are basically a small number of interviews with the author, a Jan 1, 2007 Publishers Weekly brief (basically a short PR puff that promotes a book to retailers) and a Michigan Daily article of Dec 5, 2006 that mentions the book in connection with a speech by the author [1]. As for the other criteria of notability, it certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author cannot be described as "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" (a sample indicator for "historical significance" is "a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study", like Shakespeare or Lincoln). One "external resource" is linked from the article - a speech by the author that in no way corroborates its notability.

It's not enough for a book to be mentioned only in passing (that's why Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks of non-trivial references). To quote: "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source: "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable."

(I should note that the editor who created and maintained the article, CltFn (talk · contribs), was banned by the Wikipedia community in January 2008 for extensive disruptive editing. I've not notified him of this discussion for the obvious reason that he can't participate in it.)

I realise that some editors may have strong views on the book's political thesis but please confine comments to whether or not the book meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Please bear in mind that deletion discussions aren't votes and their outcome is determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. Unsubstantiated assertions aren't useful in helping to determine a course of action. Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make. ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Author may be notable but the book is not, in my humble opinion. No articles about it in google news that are part of the mainstream press, all 3 are conservative publications or brief mentions. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, there is a smattering of coverage, but I agree — I haven't found anything that is both non-trivial and published in fully reliable sources. (I say "fully reliable" because I'm not all that familiar with some of the conservative and U.S. Jewish-community sources at issue.) Also, it apparently made it to #12 on the NYT bestseller list [2], which actually leads me to be surprised that there's not more coverage, especially given the, shall we say, incendiary views of the author. IMO a single review from a mainstream publication, even if it was just a few sentences, would justify flipping my vote. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia isn't the daily kos. 'Conservative' publications still count. Since when is it 'incendiary' to write about muslim terrorists? Nick mallory (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make." What criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books) do you think the book meets? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability has nothing to do with the particular POV expressed by a given book. This book isn't notable, and it doesn't matter what the subject matter is.PelleSmith (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, the publication in question is not notable and does not appear to have non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, plenty of books in Category:Books critical of Islam are less notable than this. I don't think we have a clear enough policy in general in regard to both "pro" and "anti" Islam books but I think we need to so that we can support neutrality across articles and eliminate systemic bias of either deleting "anti" Islam books and keeping "pro" ones or vice versa. That being said, I favor inclusionism and would like to keep but I don't want to keep this one if it will create bias when other books of similar note are removed. gren グレン 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may well be the result of a single, now banned, editor cultivating a walledgarden of such articles. I'm in favor of applying WP:NOTBOOK evenly whenever articles come up for deletion, and proposing non-notable books for deletion whenever I find them. <eleland/talkedits> 07:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two points: first, notability is not inherited (the argument that it is has long been regarded as one to avoid in deletion discussions), and "other stuff exists" is likewise generally regarded as an invalid argument. Second, in response to Eleland, you're right that CltFn did create a number of articles on books critical of Islam. Several have been deleted after being PRODded or through AfD (I nominated one of them - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom). I've reviewed the rest and am satisfied that they meet the notability criteria. This one didn't, hence this deletion discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brigitte Gabriel. Sole book by this author. Appears to have spent some time on New York "Times Political Best Seller" list. Objections to the creator and content notwithstanding, we have notability, but the article is very sparse. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddly enough, "appears on a bestseller list" isn't a criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (books) (I'm a bit surprised by that omission). However, merging sounds like a workable solution. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into Brigitte Gabriel, no afd necessary. If the article on Brigitte Gabriel is itself judged to fail WP:BIO, consider merging into Criticism of Islam and/or Islamophobia. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged. Redirect article to Brigitte Gabriel pending outcome of this AFD. I'm not sure if it is proper for redirect pages, but it might be desirable to leave the existing categorization so Category:Books critical of Islam still links to this item. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom.Bless sins (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being polemical doesn't make it non-notable, if anything notoriety increases notability. Being #12 on the NYT Bestseller list certainly makes it notable enough. --MPerel 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, appearing on a bestseller list isn't actually a notability criterion. We have to use the criteria we have, not the ones you wish we had. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, the guideline appears to needs work, it defies common sense since appearing at the top of the New York Times bestseller list is obviously notable. And actually on quick perusal, it appears the book does in fact meet the first criteria which includes television reviews, since the author has made rounds on the talk show circuit discussing the book. There are interviews with conservative hosts Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Townhall.com[3]. She also discusses her book in this CNN interview, this Hannity and Colms interview, and this Duke University interview. Gabriel also presented the book on Book TV CSPAN-2. --MPerel 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw those interviews but they fail the first criterion of WP:NB, that the sources should be independent of the book itself (note the clarification below, which specifically excludes sources "where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.") Looking at the WP:NB talk page, it seems that the issue of "notability deriving from sales figures" is one that's come up before and has been rejected as a criterion. I can sort of see the point in that, given the appearance of trivial things like sudoku books in the bestseller lists. Brief public popularity doesn't automatically equal historical notability - after all, what is the notability of the #12 book on the NYT bestseller list of 11 March 1908? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose I can see the logic of a book's notability not being based on exposure on the public talk circuit, which is really mostly about marketing. I am a bit surprised that after being on the NYT Bestseller's list and being highlighted on these major talk shows, there doesn't seem to be any book reviews of substance out there that I can find. Mind you, I still think the guideline has set the bar too high on book inclusion, but then I would find an informative article on just about any book valuable and see no good reason to be exclusionary. --MPerel 07:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've not looked at the timing in any detail, but it wouldn't surprise me if the book's appearance on the bestseller lists was directly related to its exposure on the public talk circuit. The exposure is actually entirely about marketing - post-publication interviews, talks etc. are invariably arranged by the author's or publisher's publicist with the specific intention of boosting sales. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 12 March 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.