Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Spellberg


 * 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 Denise Spellberg; Merge/Redirect Sherry Jones (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Denise Spellberg

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

The author has posted three essentially identical articles about a current news event, titled for the book concerned, The Jewel of Medina, and the two people involved. It is debatable whether per WP:NOTNEWS the book article should be here rather than in Wikinews, but per WP:BLP1E "Cover the event, not the person" these two people should not have articles, or even redirects. Author reacted to one of the PRODs with a, which I take to mean it is contested. Delete both. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Both to The Jewel of Medina. My feeling is that the story itself is notable enough for a wikipedia article and as such both of these names seem to be likely search terms and as such should be redirects. Dpmuk (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Denise Spellberg is probably notable even without this incident. She teaches at a major university. has one book out and one in press (with Random House) and is widely cited (try her in JSOR or google books.  Just  because she didn't have a page until she made headlines doesn't mean she was not notable before this brouhahha erupted.BatYisrael (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael
 * Valid point and if someone updates the Denise Spellberg page with such information I'll change my redirect vote but as things stand there's nothing worth keeping on the page. Dpmuk (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no problem with keeping this article as a stub until it is improved. Subject is notable.lk (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Indeed it is notable! Deleting it sounds craven, as if Wiki had no more courage than Random House. I think it's particularly notable, even without the additional information suggested above, since Spellberg is a university professor and lent herself to dissing this book. Remember when universities were defenders of unpopular speech instead of collaborating to suppress it? Oldpilot (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest deleting the Jewel of Medina article on the incident; but we don't need three articles on it, all basically the same. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep These articles relate to an important issue: should Islam be protected from all possible criticism when other religions (to which Islam is frequently hostile) don't enjoy such privileges. I would even suggest expanding the articles by referring to the publication of "The Satanic Verses," the Danish cartoons, and the "Fitna" film.  "Oldpilot" has got it right--Wiki should have more guts than Random House!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobengula (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all three articles Jones is now an author at the center of a notable media storm. the novel is notable because of that media frenzy.  and Spellberg is a professor who is sufficiently notable even without this incident.BatYisrael (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Both to The Jewel of Medina as per Dpmuk. The foregoing votes nothwithstanding, there's no evidence of notability of these two persons outside of this single event. Mentioning them in the The Jewel of Medina article should be enough. Talking about having more or less guts than Random House really does not enter into this discussion. Notability is the important criterium here and neither of the two articles' subjects has any notability demonstrated. --Crusio (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * merge Denise Spellberg & Sherry Jones into The Jewel of Medina (and redirect) per JohnCD & Dpmuk.  Event is notable, WP:BLP1E suggests the protagonists aren't.  Google scholar turns up four cited publications for Denise Spellberg, cited 28,4,2 & 1 time each which doesn't suggest to me that she passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But google books turns up about 100. some mere footnotes, but many citing her work in some detail as an authoratative source on sundry questions re: women's status in Islam.BatYisrael (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael
 * The standard required by WP:PROF is pretty high. JohnCD (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.72.247 (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect both to The Jewel of Medina. A rename to The Jewel of Medina controversy might be appropriate since the book has yet to be published and its notability comes from the controversy that is created instead of from the actual book. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 03:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The second, third, and fourth !voters at this afd seem to have come out of the woodwork and neither of them have any previous afd experience. I'm just saying........-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sherry Jones who is a largely unknown small-town journalist, but Keep Denise Spellberg per BatYisrael's comment.Kitrus (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete All three articles taken together seem to run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. There really may not be a controversy over this book.  No doubt such a spectacle would aid sales and provide notability.  But until the spectacle has come to pass, these articles's contents need to merge somehow or just delete for now. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try to separate these issues. Spellberg is notable because of her widely-cited work on women in Islam.BatYisrael (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael
 * Comment "widely cited", see Pete Hurd's analysis above. "Barely cited" is a better description of those numbers. --Crusio (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't usually use google scholar, but google books has over 100 citations and JSTOR has 27.BatYisrael (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael
 * Response Even if we were to assume that every hit you mention is a real citation and that GB and JSTOR give independent hits, that just makes for a grand total of 127. That still falls under "barely cited", I'm afraid. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the notability will skyrocket within the next few weeks. CENSEI (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008
 * See WP:CRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEPKEEP'''The issue of this book being censored by Random House has been featured on Drudge Report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrkester (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC) — Rrkester (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment no one doubts that this incident is in the news. This discussion is about whether an encyclopedia needs to have three articles about it. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * the Pakistan Times is quoting Spellberg, Reuters has a story up, its on television in India. As I said at the top of this page, give it a few days and see what another news cycle or two brings.BatYisrael (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael
 * take a look at news google. You can watch that Reuters story being picked up in a chain moving east from the date line.  Multiple papers in New Zealand, Australia,  Singapore, Pakistin, India, South Africa. the International Herald Tribune.  The thing to do will be to keep the articles upt  to date.  The author's agent says she is about to announce publication n more coutries.  Probably unwise to take down the author's page with that announcement pending.  Especially when she's been interviewed by Reuters.BatYisrael (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)BatYisrael
 * comment that it's in the news doesn't sway my opinion from merge. The book may be notable (assuming the article doesn't fail WP:NOT) but the protagonists are still seem WP:BLP1E to me, no matter how loud the news coverage gets for the event. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP This is an important story and people will turn to Wikipedia to find out more about it and the participants. We owe it to readers to provide a full context for them. Nickpullar (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think anybody here disagrees with you about that. The question is, does this merit three different articles all about the same single event?? Of course not! --Crusio (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

— 70.1.162.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crusio (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the novel and novelist have suddenly become the next Salman Rushdie. The professor probably was semi-notable before this, but Random House needs to learn not to turn to her for a cover quote next time. :) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment - might be worth re-nominating in 3 months time once furore/publicity that she is involved in has died down and the case can be viewed more rationally - for the moment she is notable and receiving a lot of quoting and commenting upon - on that basis of notability, Wikipedia should have an article on her - for the moment. A longer term judgement on how persistent her notability is can be taken later. SFC9394 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Denise Spellberg, who clearly passes WP:PROF on her own merits even beyond the current controversy. Neutral on Sherry Jones, leaning towards redirecting to The Jewel of Medina for now, as it appears that her sole claim to notability is this unpublished novel. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because recent news stories have greatly increased interest in this person making her quite notable. I would like people to be able to come to Wikipedia and get detailed information about her. 01:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeyugnlB (talk • contribs)
 * Delete What she did is not notable. It's about the same as the wiki edit wars that go on all the time right here.  With a Phd she's got a bit more mojo that most, so I'd say her behavior is on the par with the bullying we get from wiki editors.  So I recommend deletion.  She's in the business of making sure only one specific safe speech is heard, and so are we, here at teh wiki wars.  We don't want to give her publicity, or that might cast a shadow on our own behavior here. 70.1.162.89 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IP, you may wish to write less obscurely. In particular, the bullying we get from wiki editors: Who are "we", and which "wiki editors"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well the bully is Admin Raul654. Amongst the usual wiki lawyering he does, he is also on some lifetime vendetta against one douchebag named scibaby.  To keep scibaby from eiditing the wiki, he has massive IP blocks set up against Spring Broadband.  So his blocks hit thousands of square miles and hundreds of thousands of users, and his bans aren't even effective: to get around his ban, you just drop your connection and dial back in.  But you have to know to do that.  They guy, Raul654, is a real prick, and won't explain why he involves himself in such an ineffective but highly annoying ban. 70.1.50.38 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So a "real prick" can "suck donkey balls" (your edit summary)? This is getting too confusing for me. The relevance of Raul654 to any of this eludes me, as he has neither commented here nor otherwise been mentioned. I'm sure he'll be happy to hear of any more effective countermeasure(s) that you can suggest against a "douchebag", but it's probably better to present your grimoire somewhere other than here. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC) .... PS do try not to call people pricks, douchebags or similar, and try not to speculate about their sexual activities or proclivities. It runs afoul of various WP policies and may get you banned. As for the annoyance of the IP block, simply get a user ID. This is extraordinarily simple. -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that The Jewel of Medina is encyclopedic. However, it might become so later; and anyway the article is here and I take it as axiomatic that it is going to stay. &para; There's no sign that Jones has any notability aside from the book, so anything about her should be summarized and merged into the book article, and the article on Jones should become a redirect to it. (If she later writes more books and has them published and written up, she may deserve and get an article.) &para; The role of Spellberg in the non-publication of the book seems to be very clear in the minds of some people (or puppets), but I'd like to see it written up other than in a Murdoch newspaper, the blogosphere, etc, before taking it all that seriously. The charges about her may be (carefully) mentioned in the article about the (non-) book, but the material about her should not be summarized and merged there. Whether Spellberg merits her own article is something I haven't yet decided. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into the article on The Jewel of Medina. The book may be notable as a subject of controversy; I doubt the professor passes WP:PROF, which is a high standard -- more notable than the average professor, which an associate professor 20 years after PhD, specializing in a narrow historical figure with, is not. RayAYang (talk) 21:42, 12 August 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.