Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Allah, then for history


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

For Allah, then for history

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails both WP:BK and WP:GNG. Analysis of book's significance may be a case of WP:OR. The two sources referenced in this article are two non-RS blogs. A search of Google News, newspapers.com, and JSTOR failed to find the phrase "For Allah, then for history." A search of Google Books found the phrase invoked twice: once in a footnote in a self-published book from vanity publisher iUniverse, the second time in a one-sentence mention in a RS-published book. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEPI don't think it fails WP:BK. It is mentioned in at least two books (the source just added and in the book mentioned within the article) and in an online article which are cited as sources here.Kuching7102 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Has it won a major literary award like the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award? Has it been the subject of two major works such as TV documentaries or bestseller lists? Has it been adapted into a major motion picture? Is it written by an historically significant author? Is it the subject of instruction at two or more accredited universities? If your answer to all of these questions is "no" then it fails WP:BK. If not, please tell us which way it passes BK. Chetsford (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It meets the first requirement of WP:BK, and you will note that only ONE of that list is necessary for it to meet notability. It does not have to meet more than one or all 5. The first criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. A published work can mean a book (which is one of the sources here) or a website/review etc (which is another of the four sources here). It clearly meets notabilityKuching7102 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mention in a footnote in a self-published book from iUniverse combined with a mention on shiaweb.org does not qualify as dedicated study by "two or more non-trivial published works". A documentary on PBS, a contemplative study published by Oxford University Press, a journal article analyzing the work in Journal of Islamic Studies - those would all pass muster. A footnote in a book from a vanity publisher and a mention on shiaweb don't. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I was unable to find any RS that cover this topic. Would be happy to change this if sources are found though. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleteno need to expand on nominator's reasoning - it says it all. No WP:RS to establish WP:N. Sources cited are insufficient to show anything other than that a book exists. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Patar knight, and am surprised basic details such as a publication date (or estimation of it) are not available. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:22, 8 November 2017 (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.