Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books critical of Islam


 * 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. WaltonOne 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

List of books critical of Islam

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Inherently POV list, unreferenced. I started cleaning this list by checking the articles, but soon noticed that people put here everything what is controversial, rather than "criticism". Not to say that this list is redundant, because there is a category with exactly the same name. Mukadderat 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless cited, categorizing these books into this category would as Original Research. Correct me if I'm wrong here.  Corpx 02:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) No need to have identical lists and categories.  Corpx 17:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the OR angle. It's a rare book that will uniformly criticize everything about its particular topic, so this list most likely contains books that are critical of some doctrines or social effects of Islam while perhaps praising others. It's inherently OR to extrapolate from a criticism of, say, Islamic extremists to a criticism of Islam. Most of these books are not critical of Islam necessarily, but rather have a narrower focus. By this metric, many of the Pauline epistles could be listed as criticisms of Christianity. Deranged bulbasaur 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To propose a positive solution: it would make more sense, I think, to list books about the social impact of Islam, or about Islam and ethics, or about Islamic theology. Within such a list, one could include different perspectives on the various issues without projecting the works along one simple axis or putting words in the mouths of their authors. Deranged bulbasaur 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The references that mention that the books are indeed critical of Islam, is included in the articles. -- Karl Meier 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that in majority of cases there are not. Mukadderat 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not a POV list, if you have POV issues with the page, take it to the talk page of the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV or not, the category makes this list redundant. utcursch | talk 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:UtcurschTaprobanus 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Another bad, POV-ridden OR-risking list that is unmaintainable and can never aspire to an encyclopedic standard. Eusebeus 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whats OR about this list? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unreferenced and possibly POV and also per Utcursch.--JForget 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator mentions that there is a similar article, and that he/she tried to clean this article up. A lot of hard feelings exist against Islam, and there are books that are highly critical of that religion and its followers.  As with "Anti-Christian" books, however, one must make sure that these are indeed directed at the religion, and not something that a follower of a religion simply takes offense at.  In the Christian example, the Last Temptation of Christ would not be included, nor a book against the Moral Majority; but some of Madlyn Murray O'Hair's works deriding Christianity as "superstitious nonsense" would.  Author of this article would serve the point better by going beyond the blue-link. Mandsford 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there is nothing wrong or POV with this list. Seems like delete reason is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is simple original research. Do we have number of secondary sources indicating all of these books as critical to Islam? I do not think so. However, even if there are sources saying those book critical to Islam, I am not sure still creating such article is encyclopedic. --- A. L. M. 10:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: How about renaming it to "Books related to Islam and controversy". Any better ideas? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per OR concerns above. we already have a category in any case, which should be sufficient.  ITAQALLAH   15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Itaqallah.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) - Likely sockpuppet of Kirbyftime. See check user. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Itaqallah. → AA (talk • contribs) — 10:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The new title is better. Any comments? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it is incredibly vague, making the article even more redundant.  ITAQALLAH   19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A very useful list. With all lists and categories, the guideline WP:OR is harder to enforce. We often choose the lists over the strict interpretation of the guideline. This list serves an encyclopedic purpose and with those concerned watching it, it will be accurate. Arrow740 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The criterion is too vague. The modern way of discourse is inherently based on critical thinking, so today nearly every European book discussing Islam may be declared critical (especially by Islamists). What is worse: Shiites and Sunni are cutthroat critics of each other, so I guess Islamic books of islam also critical of Islam (of the opposite trend). I even do not begin to list books about Islamic slave trade, women in Islam, Ottoman Empire, etc., - many of them quite critical of Islam. Concluding, being "critical" of something is not sufficiently defining to have a category. `'Míkka 00:06, 19 July 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.