Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist


 * 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable publication. No citations. A quick google shows an extreme lack of coverage in secondary sources (the only hits seem to be retailers). It's been a stub since its creation sixteen months ago, with zero content edits made on it in all that time, outside the creation of the article itself. Furthermore, there is no encyclopedic content here, just a TOC. Ford MF 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. I am also suspicious of Mark A. Gabriel and his other two books, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad and Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle. Our article says his identity has not been "independently verified" and relies on an abundance of primary sources. It survived AFD in 2005, when standards were not so strict. --Dhartung | Talk 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, quite honestly there are a lot of articles in (and around) Category:Books critical of Islam that need to go for exactly the same reasons this article needs to go. No encyclopedic content, no secondary sources, &c.  But taking that on is a serious project that I don't think I'm quite up for at the moment.  Ford MF 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That category isn't going to be particularly useful to anyone browsing Wikipedia for things to read if half or most of the books are removed from it. (Not to mention any names, but I've no doubt there are plenty of people who'd prefer it that way.)--Mike18xx 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   --  Jacek   Kendysz  18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   --  Jacek   Kendysz  18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  ITAQALLAH   20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. → AA (talk • contribs) — 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete does not look notable, hence delete. We do not create article about each book. --- A. L. M. 08:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am in the process of researching and improving this article, and have found references to the book being cited as a source in journals.--Mike18xx 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I've now fleshed out the entry with quotes and references, and thumbed-down the formerly huge picture. While I'd still prefer to have better sources for positive and negative reviews of this relatively new book, I believe they are at present sufficient in conjunction with the journal cite, as well as the fact that the author has other books, in addition to himself, listed at Wikipedia.--Mike18xx 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Better than before but, I feel, still does not meet WP:N for the following reasons:
 * In Touch magazine lists a number of books. It is not the subject of the review and the mention is trivial. In fact, the review actually emphasises Gabriel's notability and not the book's.
 * The Quarterly Journal, again, is not discussing the book and makes only two trivial mentions of it in the footnotes citing 8 pages of the book.
 * Future Islam (is this a reliable source?) does indeed cover this book but the reviewer appears to be non-notable too since there are 0 ghits.
 * Based on this, I'd still say it does not meet the notability guideline of "significant coverage" and should be listed in the article of the author as recommended here. → AA (talk • contribs) — 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on this, I'd still say it does not meet the notability guideline of "significant coverage" and should be listed in the article of the author as recommended here. → AA (talk • contribs) — 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The sources that Mike18xx has now added makes it obvious that the book is notable enough to have an article. -- Karl Meier 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per recently added sources.-- Sef rin gle Talk 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since there are two adequare references, (Reference 1 is amazon: not a RS for anything beyond the fact that it's been published. Ref 2 is "In Touch Magazine" is  "A Magazine of People and Possibilities A FREE Self-Help, Inspirational, Holistic Publication " I cannot tell if it's a RS in whatever its field may be, but it is not a RS for Islamic terrorism. JB, of the MB school of theology, who wrote there, doesn't exactly seem qualified either). But  3/ Connections, however, is very substantial: , from ETH Zurich, as solidly academic & respectable as you can get.  The   cite is a section of an article "U.S./NATO-Russia and Countering Ideological Support for Terrorism: Toward Building a Comprehensive Strategy." 1-25 by Sharyl N. Cross"  and does make reference to the book and praises it . "For an excellent summary of the contributions of the influence of these writings in the development of Islamist radicalism see Mark A. Gabriel, Journey Into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist (Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2006), 20–26. Future Islam seems a high quality liberal Islamist online  publication, & has an extensive review. . Seems OK after all, despite most of the article being a quote from that well known RS, the book jacket. Good NPOV overall. DGG 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are enough 3rd party non-trivial reliable sources now. Thanks to the person who added them. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:12, 18 June 2007 (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.