Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad's Monsters
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 no consensus, default is to keep. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Muhammad's Monsters
article was initially prodded, but as that has been contested, i have brought the article to be discussed here. i believe it fails WP:BK criteria, and as i wrote on the talk page: there are no apparent reliable or independent sources offering non-trivial review of the book. the only information i could find in the first 100 ghits or so was standard unauthored summaries plastered on retail websites(i.e. [1],[2])- thus no independent review from anyone not actually selling the book- and the only other mention was a trivial title-mention in a Haaretz article. hence, Delete. ITAQALLAH 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete in the absence of reviews showing notabiity. DGG (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I agree, we don't have enough data to judge notability. ZZ 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Book is a collection of writings from very notable experts on radical islam . The book page is also part of David Bukay's bibliography.--CltFn 12:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and DGG. → AA (talk) — 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As CltFn pointed out, some of the writers are highly notable. -- Karl Meier 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- that may justify articles on the writers themselves. there is no reason to believe the book itself is notable as per WP:BK. ITAQALLAH 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - If the individual authors are indeed notable in and of themselves, then saying so in the article (via a sourced statement) would be sufficient to assert notability. The book could be notable due to its content, but notability is not inherited from the book's author(s). Reading the article itself, I have no means to judge why this collection is notable in and of itself - it's just a table of contents. ZZ 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- that may justify articles on the writers themselves. there is no reason to believe the book itself is notable as per WP:BK. ITAQALLAH 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
