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. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad (2nd nomination)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Even after the first afd, nothing has been inserted into the article that demonstrates any notability. A google search of the title returns 83 unique pages, many of them being personal blogs. Trulyequal 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The code was missing. I've added it and the display is now correct. → AA (talk) — 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Em. I guess 17,000 on the Amazon rank isn’t so bad as all that, especially for a book five years old. With millions of book titles in the inventory, this means it’s in the top 1% of Amazon sales. I bet there’re more than a few authors who’d kill to be listed so high. And that Wikipedia has many book articles titles places considerable lower. And of course you’re not going to find much mention of a five year old book on google news. It didn't even exist then.
In fact I just clicked on four random books from the wiki category: Cate!gory:2002 books – and not one of them was ranked anywhere near this book:
High Score!: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games # 602.322
Hobo (book) # 920,501
High and Mighty (book) # 343,383
Harmful to Minors #205,863
Heres a book by Herman Melville Mardi, and a Voyage Thither – coming in at a whooping #3,469,482. - and not a mention on google news. I hope we won’t have to start to delete Herman Melville books on that account. Rune X2 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I don't nominate the other articles, from the same reasons I don't agree this article should be deleted, because I myself have an interest in obscure Victorian literature which leads me to find interesting articles on books which most people would find completely non-noteable and which I'm sure lists considerable lower on Amazon than this book. Which actually might not even be at sale there and sure as hell have never been mentioned on google news. Another person might easily have other obscure interests and find this book interesting, even when you or the other editors in here find it non-noteable. You throw around this "notable" like it could scientifically measured, but "noteability" depends entirely on your own interests and is anything but unbiased.
Besides I hate dead ends on Wikipedia. And since I can't imagine you'd want the article on the author deleted, then a mention on books by the author on that page would have to be de-linked. Thirdly I think the book is noteable enough, on account of the author being notable - the same way I think "Mardi, and a Voyage Thither" by Herman Melville is notableable because of its author. Rune X2 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may have a point, that it's only the controversial nature of this book that has led to it being nominated here. I don't know, you'd have to ask the nominator. However, that's irrelevant. WP has guidelines and policies that must be adhered to. Regardless if this article is interesting or useful, the subject does not pass Wikipedia's (not mine or the other editor's) guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't. Furthermore, I fail to see how the author of the book is notable. faithless (speak) 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You fail to see how a widely discussed and published author is notable, but a cursory look on your page revels that you yourself have created articles ranging from one on an obscure American soccer player, over some rock band with apparently no known cds to its name to an even more obscure fan of a little known American football team. But if that is your opinion then the honest thing would be to start with trying to get the article on the author removed - and then his books afterwards. Instead of chipping away at the corners and making the original author entry less usefull. And shouldn't we leave it at noting that it doesn't pass your guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't, while it does pass other editors notion of what is noteable. Rune X2 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree with it or not, coaches of national soccer teams are notable, as are people and bands who have received news coverage from reliable and independent sources. If You feel strongly about it, nominate the articles I've written for deletion. Meanwhile, try to stay on topic and not come up with petty attacks because someone disagrees with you. Widely discussed and published? You mean aside from his own books and website? Oh, and the Jets are anything but a "little known American football team." That's laughable. Stop taking this so personally. faithless (speak) 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, my two worst articles were the first two I created, before I really understood Wikipedia, on two actresses who really aren't very notable. If you'd like, feel free to nominate those, I'm sure you'd win. ;) faithless (speak) 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I wouldn't "win" - perhaps we'd both lose. Because, who knows, there may very well be people out there who are interested in little known actresses or everything to do with fans of American football teams or whatever - and Wikipedia loses nothing by also providing information for these people. Personally I think all to do with American football completely un-noteable, but wouldn't presume to list them all for deletion on account of my own interests.
Anyhow, no harm done. I guess I'll just post the article on some of the other language wikis. Already I find the German wiki often to be of a better quality than the English and often have article not found in English. And since I'm a fan of plurality of languages this is fine by me. Rune X2 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, so much for WP:BEANS :-) --Bfigura (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, does someone want to AfD High Score for me? CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS If you think that there is a problem with another article, put it up for deletion. Look at this book on its own notability. Jayran 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And see WP:UGH for the reason why this and not the other works are listed for deleting. And as long as we're WP:SPAMMING then a couple of editors here might want to check out: WP:JNN, WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:NOEFFORT. Rune X2 06:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged with a notability tag for months and no one has ever suggested why it is notable. It is telling that this book has received no hits on Lexis Nexis or Google News. There appears to be no reviews by a rs. The fact that this book hasn't even received attention in its own cottage industry shows that it has no notability. Of the books listed, several should be deleted but the Melville book is notable on the basis of its author and among that list, the book, Harmful to Minors won a book award and attracted media attention. I don't know about the others as they make no mention of notability. Jayran 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment, the 100 reviews on Amazon are enough for me to say keep. -Quasipalm 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To this I'd like to add that some of them should assume good faith, and not make some shrill or insinuating accusations that every editor voting delete is trying to censor this book--Victor falk 08:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made the case that I find the book noteable on account of the author being noteable.
And talking of "shrill or insinuating accusations", then it would help if you didn't make ridiculous exaggerations ("every editor") and shrill or insinuating accusations against editors trying to keep this book. And remember this is not a vote, and that merely stating any number of WPs, WP:BK, WP:N or just stating it isn't notable or the article hasn't been worked on, is neither here nor there. Rune X2 09:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I meant "a lot of", "many" or "most"--Victor falk 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept the fact that an author's notability doesn't make ipso facto any and all of his books noteable--Victor falk 10:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I can easily accept the obvious fact that my opinion is not shared by most editors in this discussion, what I don’t like is how "noteability" is presented by some as a scientific verifiable fact, rather than just your own opinion. I also don’t much care being accused of making "shrill or insinuating accusations" Rune X2 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated it - yes. Could you elaborate please and explain then how "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." (the example given is "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study."). Thanks. → AA (talk) — 10:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For fear of repeating myself, then I believe the author's page would become less useful and interesting, when you remove links to his books. I personally like to browse around Wikipedia, clicking from one article to the next and see where it takes me. If I was to happen on this article, and was interested in his book, then with this article gone, I’d have to copy-paste the book into Amazon or Google or whatever to see what it is about. This to me is a less useful Wikipedia. Of course, the material could just be lifted from the book page and moved to the author-page. But that would make it unnecessary cumbersome page. – Do you believe the author article would be improved by removing this article?
I also happen to believe Wikipedia should have room to cater to less mainstream, or even obscure, interests.
And finally I find it somewhat disingenuous to re-nominate an already nominated article, without there being substantial new development to think the situation has altered in some essential way. But the nominater, who hasn’t even bothered to come back and discuss his nomination, made no startling new arguments. Just a tired rehash of the old ones. It smacks of putting up an article you dislike for nomination again and again until one day you get your way. I don't like it when my country does it, and I don't like it when I see it on Wikipedia Rune X2 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and please remember to assume good faith. The nominator has given a valid reason for the nomination - i.e. fails WP:N. The first AfD (which closed as "No consensus") was 2 years ago and therefore the article has had sufficient time to establish notability (which, once established, would ensure the article is not nominated again for this reason). We shall see what the closing admin says this time as there does appear to be a clear consensus. → AA (talk) — 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? What, I don't exist? No, there is no consensus as several editors have expressed their disagreement. If there was consensus we wouldn’t be talking. There do however seem to be a majority if that is what you mean. Rune X2 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, it means majority opinion. faithless (speak) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean that either. You may want to look at WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus in practice CitiCat ♫ 02:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look at a dictionary. Sorry, that came out much more dick-ish than was intended. I apologize. faithless (speak) 03:22, 22 September 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.
More