Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatwa e Razvia


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Fatwa e Razvia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This book fails Notability (books). It has been the subject of a single PhD dissertation, which itself doesn't seem notable and its only one. It has won no awards, has no reliable sources establishing its significance (though a whole lot of wordpress blogs and Youtube videos quote it, not RS), is not the source of instruction for any reputable institution of learning and was not written by an extraordinarily notable author. Additionally, the creator of this article is one of many now indefinitely blocked sockpuppets of a problem user who created articles on non-notable subjects via its socks; many of those articles have been hit with speedy, prod or AfD and deleted in the past few months. Just one of many articles on subjects which aren't notable, making claims which aren't supported by reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * delete - Author notable but this just is a collection of all his writings so not notable in itself it would appear - SimonLyall (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the author is in fact notable, and if this is in fact the title of one of his books (or a plausible transliteration or misnomer), and if that book is not in fact notable, none of which I have attempted to check, then it should be redirected to the article on the author. James500 (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2013 (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.