Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Non-notable novel from 2005. Political/religious thriller. Amazon rank of 380,000+, and no reader reviews. No real assertion of notablity. (Should we speedy it?). -Will Beback 09:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Will Beback 09:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete though not speedy (makes claim for notability). Title is highly POV and may be an attempt to get this slogan more widely known. David | Talk 09:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can best shed light on this because I created it. I created this to make a point.  Note that point is different than WP:POINT because this in no way causes disruption to wikipedia.  Yet, when I saw a proliferation of anti-Islamic polemics (some found in Category:Books critical of Islam) I created a rather borderline notability book about Christianity but made sure its  Amazon rank (381,306) was better than the book that inspired its (639,969).  I was worried about systemic bias because when an encyclopedia has many pretty non-scholarly critical books about one religion and not about others I'm not sure that's a good thing.  It should be noted that there are more critical of Christianity books and hopefully things will even out some, but since it was pretty clear to me from other articles that inclusionist tendencies were winning out in the community I realized that books on this level were not considered notable per AfD voting standards.  The title also plays off of Islamofascism debates but was not an attempt to get the title into greater usage.  I would also not oppose in any way adding (book) to the end of the title of that makes people feel more comfortable. gren グレン ? 14:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. So you agree that it's borderline notable, and you admit that you only created the article to make a point about an unrelated issue, yet you still insist that it should be kept? Is this really a book that is critical of Christianity? I'm not sure how it even makes your point. -Will Beback 19:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the book is probably not encyclopedic. However, my vote for this is based on other standards that seem to have been set from my perusal of other AfDs.  Similar to the subject of schools I suppose.  My point about Christianity evenness was not cheap critiques.  It was moreso titles since I created it during the AfD of The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book).  My point was that what I believe has become the de facto standard for book notability has been set below this--whether it's good or bad.  I was also curious about the deletion prospects for this.  If this is deleted and some of the others aren't I'd want to know why.  I'm not sure if I'm making sense. gren グレン ? 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, the title is POV but I don't see why we'd care - it's the title of a book. We can argue the importance of the book, but I doubt it would go anywhere.  We have articles on individual episodes of obscure TV programs nobody's ever seen, so I'd be surprised if we got consensus to delete this.  However my actual "vote" is merge to Richard J. Weisman, the author.  This is simply a matter of organization- there's little point having an article on a specific book before we even have an article on the author.  The author article could discuss this and his other books, and if the day comes when it's too long, we split them off again.  Friday (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: for purposes of Afd, I suppose I should have said keep. The issue of turning this into an article about the author is a matter for the talk page, not for Afd.  Friday (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it may be a fringe book, but it is on Amazon.com, so it meets WP:V. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a real book. Don't file AFDs just because you disagree with the POV of the original book.  That's poor form. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not even sure what the POV of the book is. Is every single published book sufficiently notable to have an entry here? I hope not. -Will Beback 19:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all ordinary, non-notable books. Including any books that espouse whatever the hell the opposite of this book's point of view is. Lord Bob 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the book is published by vanity self-pub press iUniverse, and not really notable based on that. --badlydrawnjeff 14:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn book, and quite lame at that.  Grue   14:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since it's a vanity publisher and it has a reasonable chance of being deleted. Nothing here to indicate particular significance of this work.  Friday (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per badlydrawnjeff. Atrian 05:20, 17 January 2006 (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.