Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating Jihad


 * 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   merge to Srđa Trifković.  Sandstein  09:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Defeating Jihad

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lack of third-party reliable sources means that this article fails verifiability policy. *** Crotalus *** 19:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Question--if a book like this is published and only right-wing blogs report on it...OK, I can't finish that joke. But I cannot find anything at all on this title that has any kind of journalistic or historical credibility--I thought I had a hit on the Guardian website, but that was only a user comment on an editorial. The rest was all jihadwatch and such. I would love for some experienced WP'ers to weigh in. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Change to Merge as per DGG Keep Multiple reviews in secondary sources independent of the subject. These are notable, well-known magazines with serious editorial processes (within the bounds of WP:RS), and their reviews more than suffice for WP:BK, whatever their political slants. Ray (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Multiple reviews" where? Among the citations in the article right now, only the Orange County Register source is an actual review of this book. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point. I have changed my position above. I was responding initially to a perceived characterization of the sources as unreliable. The sources mentioned in the article are reliable and suitable for WP:V, although care has to be taken since they are partisan voices. However, it is true, as you point out, that the source links don't talk about this book directly, but rather the author's previous work, The Sword of the Prophet. (The link is dead, but the Archive has the page). Thus, the only review of the book we currently have is the Orange County Register. Independent searching of my own found another long review article (Counterterrorism & Homeland Security Reports, 2006 Summer, Vol. 13, No. 3, 893 words, Review by Carl H. Yaeger) -- it's behind a paywall, but I'll be pleased to send a copy to any editor who contacts me via email. Other than that, Lexis turns up mostly incidental mentions, hence my changing of my position to merge. Ray (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that search. (I searched Lexis myself, but I must not be very good at it because I turned up nothing.) Actually, given that we now have at least two reviews, we see now that it is possible to write a neutral article here--"neutral" in the Wikipedia sense of presenting multiple points of view on the topic of the Wikipedia article. It doesn't even matter if all the reviews are right-wing as long as they present some differing perspectives on the book. The one you cite, for example, while sympathetic to the book's thesis, doubts that "Dr. Trikovics [sic] suggestions [are] feasible." The article should be kept. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per Ray, Several editors seem to make a habit of nominating well sourced books, instead of adding new sources to the articles themselves, wasting a lot of editors time in AfDs. travb (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into the article for the writer. We probably need real criteria for these, because the 2RS=N rule leads to keeps of articles about books that are not in any meaningful sense notable. Like this. Published in '06 but still in only 50 worldcat libraries. DGG (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've encountered your notion of zomg-notability before, but let me see if I understand it correctly as applied to books. Say this book were in 500 billion Worldcat libraries, but had received no significant independent coverage. Then the Wikipedia page could never grow much beyond the following sentence:"Zomg this book is in 500 billion Worldcat libraries."(plus, perhaps, an OR/NPOV-violating summary of the book's arguments and ideas). Would you favor keeping in that case? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have yet to find a book resent in a large number of WorldCat libraries without independent coverage from reviews. Libraries buy books in large part on the basis of reviews. How large the number is for the delete / dubious/keep divisions depends on the date & the subject --for current popular-level  books of current political interest importance I would expect at least a few hundred--if the politics involved was relevant to the predominantly US coverage in WorldCat. This topic is.  DGG (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to suggest that, in general, Worldcat holdings are correlative with the existence of reviews. But even if you're right, two reviews have actually been found in this case. 98.122.44.244 (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC) (same person as above)
 * Comment, 3 years ago books like this were created and constantly kept. About a year ago we had a great purge of borderline notability books like this.  Now they're being kept again.  We just need good standards taht are applied equallly to "pro" and "anti" Islam books... gren グレン 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into article about author. There are a few reviews, but they originate primarily from sources which are themselves polemical and partisan. I don't see anything which could really be classed as a non-trivial review from a good quality reliable source (I'm open to being corrected), but considering one editor above has identified a potential source (viewing for which is restricted), I'm inclined to believe that a merge is a reasonable compromise.  ITAQALLAH   00:56, 25 December 2008 (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.