Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out


 * 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 keep  a simple search shows plenty of sources. AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no evidence that this book ever received any mainstream attention. The article cites no reliable, third-party sources &mdash; just a single radio interview with the author, which lacks independence and hardly establishes any level of notability. It was created in June 2005 by a a now-banned user who repeatedly engaged in anti-Muslim POV pushing. The lack of mainstream attention means that it is not only impossible to meet verifiability, but also impossible to write a neutral article as our policies require. Any article would invariably give undue weight to fringe anti-Islam sources. An examination of the requirements of WP:BK also shows that this article falls short. *** Crotalus *** 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep and improve refs A single radio interview is a notable source. Certainly notability is weak but article may be worthy of inclusion.Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Google search brings up plenty of unique reviews.Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The radio interview is a trivial mention &mdash; we need sources that focus on the book, not just mention it in passing. There are lots of Google hits but that doesn't mean that any of them are reliable sources. We need reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources to keep the article. The article doesn't seem to meet the book notability guidelines &mdash; is there any reason why those guidelines shouldn't be followed in this case? *** Crotalus *** 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Just going by past experience. I've seen less notable articles kept for less.Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. I think that the article just needs some attention and a better chance to be properly sourced. Billbowery (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, if it doesn't happen during the AFD itself, it never will, and we'll just wind up going through the same thing again 6 months or a year down the road. I've seen this happen too many times before &mdash; vague claims that sure, an article sucks now, but it can be improved. Unless such claims are backed up with specific cites, they are worthless, and almost never followed up on. *** Crotalus *** 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: A "better chance"? It's had four years to be properly sourced. How much more of a chance does it need? -- B.Rossow talk contr 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:58, 22 September 2009 (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.