Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onward Muslim Soldiers

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. John254 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Onward Muslim Soldiers

Onward Muslim Soldiers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [1].Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. User:CltFn created a page for each of Robert Spencer's books in order to further Spencer's anti-Islam views. His views are controversial and not taken seriously by scholars to the best of my knowledge; he also runs a website that contains material that's arguably Islamophobic, as well as legitimate material. Most importantly, he isn't notable enough to have so many pages devoted to his views; the descriptions of his books can be added to his biography. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This book certainly passes the college professor test. The motivations we need to questions are those of the nominator. Arrow740 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If we were to merge the details of the books into the article on the author, surely we would merge and redirect this article, both for navigation purposes and to preserve the edit history in terms of the GFDL. I'm sorry, but delete and merge is not a very logical option. No change of vote. Andrewa 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It has received more than enough media attention to be notable. This is what 30 seconds on Google provided me with: [2] [3] [4]. Another thing is that I am pretty disappointed to see that SlimVirgin seems to want to use this place to discuss her personal opinions about the writer, and to make bad faith accusations and what boarders personal attacks against CltFn. Let's stick to the subject please. -- Karl Meier 13:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I should do some research before actually giving a definite opinion on whether this should be kept or not but I'm not convinced by the above. All three reviews come from blogs or websites of advocacy groups. I think they should be disregarded as non reliable per WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources. Pascal.Tesson 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs mentions it on CNN, but I don't know enough to vote.--T. Anthony 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per Karl Meier, book is notable. Kyaa the Catlord 15:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Author is notable, thus is the book. F.F.McGurk 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete The reviews cited in the article lack full info as to what publication they appeared in, so they smack of courtesy back cover blurbs authors give one another. They need to be cited to reliable independent verifiable publications to count towards notability. The Amazon sales rank of #326,368 is yawn inducing. But I wish editors would stop telling us to delete it because they do not like the author's ideology. This is not "ILIKEITpedia." And the nominator should realize that Wikipedia is not Britannica, and we let in books thousands of times less notable than the few he cites as acceptable, as does Britannica. Edison 15:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination that does not cite policy in its deletion reasoning. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). The argument by analogy with Britannica is also outside of policy, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The argument against the author's "scholarship" is a content dispute and does not belong at AFD. If the author believes a merge is warranted, use appropriate templates for that proposal.--Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as clearly notable book by a NY Times Bestseller; is the nominator trying to make a WP:POINT by this and similar nominations? Tarinth 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, book published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and worthy of treatment as a book article.--CltFn 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like a bad faith nomination based on Islamist bias.--Sefringle 05:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Karl Meier, CltFn, Dhartung, and Sefringle. Terrible nomination. This is not "Aminz likesitapedia." User:Aminz is becoming a reckless user.Arrow740 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I must remind you of WP:NPA. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment:Timely reminder, but the situation is that many good contributors doubt the good faith of these nominations. It's a narrow line to walk. The observations by Arrow740 have all been made by other users too. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The fact that the book is thououghly debunked makes it no less notable. After all, We have an entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and these books are about the same as far as accuracy and honesty goes. --John Kenneth Fisher 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Arrow740. John Vandenberg 08:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per aminz, slimvirgin. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Spencer has had several books high on the NYT bestseller list recently, and he doesn't write all that many books. A discussion of whether his scholarship is "fundamentally flawed" or not is utterly irrelevant to an AfD. - Merzbow 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. Furthermore, the comment that this book is controversial is not a reason to keep it out, it is a reason to keep it in. If there is such criticism, it would demonstrate notability. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination.DGG 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Book by bestselling author, whose bestsellers have also been nominated. Nomination and delete votes appear to be motivated purely by POV. Andrewa 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia policy on books is not that restricted. Being controversial (Hitler's War), racist (Mein Kampf), or discredited (The Destruction of Dresden) are not grounds for deletion. Edward321 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But, for the sake of WP:NPOV, any notable criticism of the book should be listed, even if it comes from partisan scholars. It is important to have all significant viewpoints. One must distinguish between criticism of Spencer and criticism of the book, of course. Only the latter should be included in this article.Rumpelstiltskin223 09:54, 13 January 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.