Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia: The Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State


 * 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. W.marsh 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Armenia: The Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State
Entirely non-notable book. Impossible for the article to be NPOV as there are only sources which attack it. There are no impartial reviews of the book. The profile of the author is effectively an attempt at character assassination (whether he deserves it or not). - Francis Tyers · 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * comment The nomination is misguided. There do exist sources that praise it. Character assassination is easily deletable, being irrelevant to the book. "Impartial reviews" are not the prerequisite of encyclopedicity. Verifiable facts about the book exist. The article must not necessarily be an in-depth analysis of the book. It did cause quite a stir, hence notable. `'mikka 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Amazon.com suggests that this book, which they have as out of print, was printed by a vanity publisher, St. John's Press.  This article seems devoted entirely to attacking the credibility of this vanity publication.  This could possibly be speedily deleted as an attack page. (WP:CSD G10) - Smerdis of Tlön 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete initially skeptical but per Smerdis of Tlön's kind amazon link there is no way this is a notable book. And is indded an attack page. libel suit anyone?--Tainter 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Who prevented you from deleting the libel and seeing whether the rest is verifiable and encyclopedis? Mukadderat 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I think every published book deserves an audience and trying to purge it from Wiki seems more like an attempt to restrict the freedom of speech, this particular page turned into character assassination and pure propaganda, with some administrators rv'ing back only to Armenian edits. Atabek 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment With all the WP:AGF in the world, I can't see how your original vote, justifies your last edit summary: "Do not modify other's votes. If it says "Delete", don't make it "Keep" or be reported to administrator". You're free to change your mind, but just in case you hadn't noticed... NikoSilver 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both the book and its author gained a certain notoriety. I deleted a huge chunk of original reseacrh which tried to "prove" that the book has correct statements, as well as character assassination irrelevant to the book. `'mikka 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We need more than just certain notoriety per this . Are there any other sources? Baristarim 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Grandmaster 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable and neutral information about the book can be found. In the current state the article has chances to become neutral and well-referenced. Mukadderat 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The book is notable in the same way the Turner Diaries is notable.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, silly you :). Your comparaison is ingenious you've read my mind. Damn, I could cry for not having made that analogy before you. Fad (ix) 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I personally don't know what to make of it really. At the end of the day, it has never been a big book. I just took a look at the notability guidelines for books (note that it is still a policy in development), and I don't see it fitting into any of those criteria, even if we compensated for systemic bias.
 * Sorry, I was vague in my explanation. There are a number of comments on the book published, clearly satisfying the first criterion. `'mikka 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It gets 96 hits in Google (practically all of them from Wiki redirects) and it is rated as 1,224,644th on Amazon.
 * If the keep voters explained in which way it fits the Wiki notability guidelines, I will vote for keep - but otherwise I think it must be deleted. I am hesitant since keep votes seem to be coming from both Turkish and Armenian editors (I kinda guess the reasons :)). I am generally pro-content, but the more I check it does seem a bit of a stretch Baristarim 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It satisfies criterion 1 of Notability (books) by having published discussions about it and its author. Also, it is re-published in 2006 (see recent version of the article). Even if it is a propaganda ploy of Turkey, all the more it is a fact of note. `'mikka 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the Turkish side wishes to keep it because they think that the book is accurate and provides another "aspect" on Armenia and Armenians. I guess the Armenian side wishes to keep it because the book is such an ill-produced, unscholarly vanity-press joke it makes the Turkish side look like muppets. - Francis Tyers · 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had guessed as much :) Listen people, such an outlook is not cool, really. There is the Wikipedia guidelines on notability, and the only thing we have to decide is if it fits the criteria. I am not familiar with the subject, it can be notable, or not be notable per guidelines. That's why I didn't vote. However, let's not use dry "not-notable", "notable" as arguments. Wikipedia is not a democracy, if the notability is established either way, it can override votes no matter what. Baristarim 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. --Candy-Panda 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, reviewed it, it is notable. --TigranTheGreat 11:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Per Eupetor. Although I do not agree with the information inside the book, if it does indeed exist and it is a published work that has gained some noteriaty due to the controversy it has generated, I say this article be stripped down per WP:NPOV and kept.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I personally wish it to remain, but I guess my fun is over. The reason why the book was reedited was because it was first published with a very limited number of copy. It is a self-published work, he registered the editor to publish the book(first allegedly of a series he wanted to publish, the second work was supposed to cover about an Armenian active participating in the destruction of the European Jews in WWII), he used the equipment of his Babtist Church community if my memory doesn't fail me, Turkishforum having financed him. The book itself has not a single critic written in any peer-reviewed publication. I trully like the man, not because I suspect he threatned the hoster of the page I had on him and his book, the oage removed as a result, and this soon after I emailed him the link requesting him to report any error on my page. Anyway, if this page has to remain there, I will have to include some relevations about him which I really don't want to. :) Fad (ix) 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC) do. :)
 * Keep. The book has been mentioned by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, the Turkish Times , the Turkish Press Review , and the Armenian Assembly of America . -- Augustgrahl 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Augustgrahl provides a relevent argument. Fad (ix) 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nareklm  05:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Fran, I really didn't feel the author was being 'character asassinated', but that's beside the point. I think the article does a very good job at pointing out both sides of the coin, and the presence of both Turkish and Armenian users in both sides of this poll is quite a strong indication. Furthermore, the notability comments right above, made me vote for keep. I was 50-50 before seeing them. NikoSilver 11:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its improved somewhat (regarding the author), but still a pretty non-notable book. This was the original 'bio':


 * "Samuel A. Weems was a disbarred Arkansas lawyer. In 1974, Samuel Weems was disbarred as a lawyer for mixing his clients' money with his own. A year later he was convicted of arson and conspiring to defraud an insurance firm [3]. He unsuccessfully ran for the position of mayor of Hazen county in 1994 and 1998. Local courts dismissed his appeals, questioning the legality of the election outcomes. [4] [5] He died from a heart attack on January 25, 2003. He is survived by his Turkish wife."


 * - Francis Tyers · 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that was definitely a 'character asassination'. In any case, notable or not, and to this process's complement, I really can't make if this article serves pro-Armenian or pro-Turkish POV. I suppose it doesn't hurt just being there, so if there were other reasons for this AfD, I think they're away now. The links for the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, the Turkish Times , the Turkish Press Review , and the Armenian Assembly of America , along with Eupator's and Fadix's parallel were really helpful. NikoSilver 14:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable book with partizan views on the subject of the Armenian Genocide and Armenians in general. Controversial author and praises by Turks.Us. Why wouldn't the article be notable. User:Dimadick


 * I would like to contribute more here but I have to do so many other things, however I have to reply to this. I am a Turk, and why would I want to praise a book whose title is "the secrets of a Christian terrorist state"? I am all for inclusiveness and I can read any thesis as long as it follows the scientific method and is academic in its layout, but the title of any written work says a lot of what we should be expecting before we have even read one page. I am not a historian and I have no idea about the contents of this book, but I would be very hesitant to buy a book whose title is "The Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State", no matter what country it is talking about, let alone say "yeah, that's the stuff". "praises by Turks" is really stretching to the point of stereotyping you know - as I said before the only thing that matters as far as we are concerned is the Wikipedia guidelines on notability for books, unfortunately I have no time to make research about it however. If it meets the criteria, it stays; if it doesn't it is bye-bye :)Baristarim 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't deny that this book is a prime example of anti-Armenianism, but I disagree with keeping it because by doing so we're basically giving a platform for those who espouse hatred against Armenians.  In fact, I never even knew that this book existed before this article was created, so why make a big deal out of it now? -- Aivazovsky 03:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Aivzaovsky. Chaldean 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The book satisfies the primary notability requirement by having multiple mentions in a variety of places. It obviously caused controversy; perhaps that is the reason people want it to go.  But covering the topic isn't against Wikipedia's standards; in fact, it is quite in line with the encyclopedia's principles.  The article shouldn't be deleted just because some people don't like the book and its views, which appears to be the reasoning behind some of the deletes here.  Perhaps a "(book)" sort of mention could be added to the title so people don't freak out when they see a such a POV article title.  If there is a problem with gang-like enforcement of a certain POV to the article, this can addressed in ways other than deletion.  The Behnam 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment By the way, for those making the research, a "review" is an in-depth analysis of the book - not just mentions of it. There should be more than one to meet the notability. Baristarim 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * hmmm, we do have a problem with the inclusion of such work, this is widespread on Wikipedia, unfortunitly the work does pass the test. I have witnessed many similar AfD and indeed it is a problem. You are a intellectual and sure know that in university level professors have for the most part published and that many are cited and reviewed and that an insignificant number have their article here. But Weems work is indeed talked about in Turkish newspapers, by Turkish organisations, the same for Armenians, so according to the guidelines and policies here, it pass the test. I am all for a change. Fad (ix) 02:02, 29 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.