Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam Unveiled (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Courcelles 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Islam Unveiled
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en  Talk to me  13:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has not received the necessary coverage in reliable sources - I found one review in Islamic Studies, another in the National Review, and one in the Daily Times, but three reviews are not enough to attest notability. (The title's been in the news lately because Spencer's writing inspired the recent terrorism in Norway, but these are passing mentions.) I'll note that the strong consensus to keep in the last AfD was actually founded on very poor arguments, such as "the book was published by a non-vanity press," "PBS mentioned it in passing once," "Author is notable and other books of his, though not this one, sold well," or WP:JUSTAVOTE. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What policy-basis is there for your statement that three reviews are not enough to attest notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * People are bound to have their own individual cutoff points for notability. To choose an example at random, I know Carrite has a low bar for inclusion of political organizations, whereby zie allows wiggle room in the "subject" and "significant" criteria of WP:ORG. I take the opposite tack: while two or three constitute "multiple" in a strictly technical sense, I don't think that that's really in the spirit of a guideline intended to ensure that only books which are notable are given their own pages. I'm also looking at this book in comparison to other Spencer books which are notable. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of them are not reviews by independent people or institutions who evaluate the book, but by people who engage in a political dispute, each with his own agenda. The fourth source is not a proper review. If these were three detailed reviews published in reliable sources with a track record for accuracy, I would probably vote in favor of keeping the article. Cs32en   Talk to me  00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Run of the mill book from "the Islam industry". Does not justify a separate article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to users giving the article FuFoFuEd a cursory glance to the title page, rather than reading it through: it's not actually a review nor a substantial discussion of the book in question. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:25, 6 August 2011 (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.