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. Aside from Carrite's comment that was almost a "delete" !vote, there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging/redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance[edit]

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book - fails WP:NBOOK absent significant coverage in reliable sources. All reliable references are trivial, eg. "Robert Spencer, who has a blog and wrote The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, said this thing," etc.; other references are unreliable and/or affiliated, or happen to contain said chain of words without being about the book. The one exception is the Asia Times review, but that's not enough to build an article on; it's a WP:NBOOK fail even going by the letter, to say nothing of the spirit.

Article was kept in previous AFD, but that was six and a half years ago when "I like it," "censorship!!" and "just keep it" were given weight equal to policy-based !votes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reserving judgement. There are a lot of hits for this book, but many of the mentions are brief, as noted above and many of the "reviews" come from sites which might not pass strict RS. Leaning towards keep, but a redirect to Robert Spencer wouldn't bother me. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I went through the GNews, GBooks, and LexisNexis hits pretty thoroughly, so let me know if you think there's something I missed or sized up incorrectly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce to redirect to Robert Spencer (author). This article has been in existence for some time, but remains very brief, not enough to justify a separate article from the author. PatGallacher (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – which could be more specifically a ((redirect to section)) Robert Spencer (author)#Bibliography.  --Lambiam 11:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep mentioned in a few articles, a few reviews. Nothing amazing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lambiam Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect striking, see below. I was expecting to find some better references, but as Roscelese points out, they tend to either just mention the book in passing or they're from unreliable sources. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added substantial RS coverage to the article. Included in what I've added is a full book review in Asia Times, in which the reviewer (while in part criticizing it) says the book "warrants our attention. Any study of contemporary Islam would be incomplete without it", significant coverage in National Review, and other refs. Most of the refs I've added are critical of the book, but they constitute IMHO clearly the requisite significant coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already specifically mentioned the Asia Times review in order to point out that one reliably-sourced review is not a NBOOK pass even by the letter, much less by the spirit. Another review from the same author won't cut it as a separate source. Too, even if you decide to ignore the fact that Spencer writes for National Review and that sources affiliated with the subject cannot possibly establish notability, "two" does not fulfill the spirit of "multiple" in any encyclopedically meaningful sense. Nice job citing trivial mentions and pretending they're reviews in order to claim a notability which does not exist, but really it's not Wikipedia's job to cover every fringe anti-Muslim book that exists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for admitting that the Asia Times review is significant RS coverage. I've added a number of other refs reflecting non-trivial RS coverage. And as to your suggestion that "two" does not "fulfill the spirit" of multiple -- that's an interesting notion, but perhaps somewhat at odds with the dictionary definition of multiple.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is also, I've just discovered, a 700+ word book review devoted to this book in the September 22, 2005, Middle East Journal. And, in addition, Midwest Book Review has this book review devoted to the book, which is partially behind a paywall. And Publishers Weekly has this book review devoted to the book, also partially behind a paywall. And this book review, also devoted to the book, appeared in June 2006 in First Things, and is also partially behind a paywall.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Middle East Journal "review" is actually an abstract in the journal's "Recent Publications" section and reads, in its entirety:

    Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, ed. by Robert Spencer. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books,2 005. 589 pages. Contribs. to p. 593. $26. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims is a collection of 58 essays that are grouped under six headings: Islamic Tolerance: Myth and Reality, Islamic Law Regarding Non-Muslims, Islamic Practice Regarding Non-Muslims, The Myth and Contemporary Geopolitics, Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nations, and The Myth in Contemporary Academic and Public Discourse. The collection seeks to challenge the view that Muslims are tolerant of non-Muslims, and to argue that Islam is a "totalitarian ideology."

    The Library Bookwatch and First Things (the latter of which may be questionably reliable anyway, given that it's the publication of an agenda-based think tank) "reviews" are literally three sentences long, and the Publishers Weekly, also a single paragraph, isn't much longer. This is not significant coverage. The fact that you seem to feel a need to misrepresent sources in order to pretend the book is notable says more about you than about the book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Publisher Weekly is hidden behind a paywall. You can only see the first paragraph. It is a book review of this book though. Dream Focus 10:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's actually only one paragraph of a few sentences, I've read it. "It's behind a paywall so you don't know that it isn't trivial" is no good if someone has EBSCO, etc. and can actually read it and see how trivial it is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Changing position in light of new sources. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources have reviewed the book, that in the article now. Anyone could've clicked the Google News Archive search at the top of the AFD, and easily found plenty. Most of those first page results are about this book. Dream Focus 18:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be confusing WP:BEFORE with WP:GOOGLEHITS. Know why it's an argument to avoid? Because if you'd taken the trouble, as I did, to read the hits, you, too, would have seen that they do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Asia Times Online mentions it throughout an article at [1]. Search for it and see how much is written about it, that significant coverage. Front Page Magazine reviews the book. [2] Publisher Weekly counts as a reliable source, and does a book review for it. Other results are hidden behind paywalls, or just quote or mention the book. Dream Focus 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL, Wikipedia does not consider fringe sources like FrontPage reliable, check the RSN archives. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment - There needs to be an RFC on book inclusion. Virtually every single book published can meet the criteria of "having been reviewed in reliable sources." This leaves the barn door open for POV trojan horses like this one... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this book doesn't even meet that criterion. We've got one source of significant, reliable coverage, plus a lot of trivial mentions and fringe websites. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Composed of works by well-known thinkers on the subject. The fact the subject makes some people uncomfortable is irrelevant. Frotz (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Author is famous" is not a criterion except in cases where the author's body of work is notable as a whole (like, say, Twain). The theory is that the author's notability should lead other people to cover the books, which would then mean that the books pass our notability guidelines. But that hasn't been the case here (or for the other Robert Spencer book articles deleted a few months back); some of his books have been covered, some have not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The editor has written enough to justify separate articles for his books. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, "author is famous" is not considered a notability criterion, and the argument you're using has specifically been rejected by the community for Spencer's books, which is why these articles were unanimously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam Unveiled (2nd nomination). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that was all that's necessary. There has to be enough to justify an article on the book that isn't just a repeat of the author's article. In this case, I think there is. I'd be slightly more likely to agree with you if this was a paper encyclopedia. It might then make more sense to put everything in one massive article. But this isn't a paper encyclopedia. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Spencer's books are notable because they have been discussed in sufficient detail in multiple reliable sources, and consequently have their own articles, but others, like this one, have not. Would you support a merge in which some of the content would be preserved, since there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources here to support a separate article? Those Spencer books which have received the necessary coverage would of course remain separate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I really don't see a problem with these articles. Even if I was to agree with the general idea of combining, one difference between this one and the others is that it has multiple authors. BTW: I'd support a keep even if the book was Enemy Combatant (book). -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I wish the book and for that matter the author were not notable, but the sources are otherwise. They're in the article, and discussed above. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spare us the posturing please. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Keep "All reliable references are trivial." Reliable. Maybe. Books is recognized by peer-reviewed scholars and popular commentators. There is clearly an absence of news-based sources, but responses from known writers certainly qualify as acceptable secondary sources. Agree with Carrite, community needs to establish a more definitive parameters for book articles. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're joking, right? The extent of its mention in the National Review is "Spencer and other conservatives have produced a whole corpus of books with titles like Sword of the Prophet, Islam Unveiled, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance..." This is about as trivial as you can get. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 29 January 2012 (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.