Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn; no standing delete votes. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK - all outside mentions from reliable sources that I can find are trivial, mentions in passing. Only inbound link is the author's article. Perhaps a redirect to Nonie Darwish is in order, but this clearly doesn't merit its own article. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Withdraw my nomination in light of sources added by article creator. It's a shame that you could find only one non-partisan source that discusses the book in any substantial detail, but the EI source proves that people other than proponents have taken notice of it, so it juuuust squeaks by. I'll be keeping an eye on the article though, so please, no more shenanigans. No lifting quotes from articles that never mention the book and claiming they're glowing reviews, and no pretending that "book tour" is a taboo phrase that obliges us to perform complicated exegesis on the news. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Curious as where the nominator was looking for sources. This very Wikipedia article lists three sources in which the book is the integral - if not main - subject of all three. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't true when I nominated it and it isn't true now. "Here is an interview with Nonie Darwish, we'll mention in passing that she wrote a book" does not make the book the subject of the interview - the interview would be a good source for the article on Darwish. Most of the references you added have the same problem - they mention the book in passing, but don't discuss it in any substantial way that would qualify for WP:NBOOK. (If you could provide a source that directly says the book was the cause of her disinvitation from Brown University, rather than articles on her disinvitation that mention that she wrote a book, that might be notable.) The "Brave Infidels" article doesn't appear even to mention the book, in contrast to your citing it as a comment on the book. (I will edit that out right now. Don't quote people saying things they didn't say.) The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism looks like a good source, but it isn't exactly "multiple," and it would be nice if you could find other reviews that weren't partisan. The Spokesman-Review is paywalled. Anyway, I'll leave it to the other editors to vote. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator has twice removed one of the sources in which the book was reviewed, but due to our edit-warring policies, I will not re-add it to the article, and instead mention it here. This 2007 review discussed a 2006 book written by Nonie Darwish. From the context, and especially after all the comparisons to the other reviews, it is clear that the book being reviewed is Now They Call Me Infidel. Removing the source because it does say explicitly the book's name smacks of wikilawyering at its worse.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the source was a review of the book, it would presumably mention the book's name, or the fact that the author wrote the book, or some of the content of the book. To claim that an article which makes no mention of this book - nor indeed of any other Darwish book - is a "review"? That's the height of original research. Do try a bit harder. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded at Talk:Now They Call Me Infidel.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * More content has been removed by the nominator.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Brewcrewer forgets to mention that none of the sources state or even imply that Darwish was disinvited because of the book. The paragraph belongs in the article on Darwish, where I put it and from which Brewcrewer then removed it. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just not true. The speeches were part of the book tour for this specific book. This much is made quite clear by the sources. You want to nominate it for deletion, fine, but don't try to ruin the article at the same time. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's "quite clear," you should be able to provide a quote that says so. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Okay, so I spent time getting the exact words that establish the nexus between the book and the protests. The following quotes from the sources discussing the speaking controversy that you removed make it clear that the speaking controversy was a result of, if not closely intertwined with, the book she published: All the above linked sources discuss her speaking controversy in the context of the book. I suppose we can further wikilawyer and argue that none of the sources it say it explicitly that the brouhaha was related to the book, but I'll let the quotes speak for themselves, and hopefully speak to the neutral and objective reader of this discussion.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "In part to drive home that point, she wrote a book, just out. Its title says it all: “Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.”
 * 2) "Given that Darwish is the author of the recently released book, 'Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror'...."
 * 3) Last year she was banned from the campus of Brown University, in Rhode Island, one of America's most prestigious academic institutions. The speaking invitation came jointly from a Jewish student group and the women's studies department, but was abruptly withdrawn, allegedly after pressure from Brown's Muslim chaplain, who claimed that Darwish had made anti-Islamic remarks and that her presence would be provocative. The university's female, Christian, chaplain backed the ban, although it was pointed out that she had promoted an earlier Palestinian solidarity week. The inevitable row catapulted the affair - and the book - into the headlines.
 * 4) "...and authored the recently published book Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. She joined the growing ranks of Muslim-born individuals - many of them not coincidentally women, including Irshad Manji, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan - speaking out against Islamic extremism at significant personal risk.."
 * 5) "Darwish, who has written a book, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror, became particularly impassioned when speaking about the treatment of women in the Arab Muslim world"
 * You call it wikilawyering - I call it one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. If you have a problem with the fundamental policies of this site, why are you here? I'm sure there are many lesser sites that would love to have a piece of original research on a non-notable book. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.


 * Keep—book covered by numerous reliable third-party sources in a non-trivial manner. The nominator's rationale might've been correct upon nomination (AGF), but after the sources provided here and in the article, it fails. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the book has been discussed in numerous reliable sources.Sanfernandocourt (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top, it only taking a second, and you can see dozens of places that review this book. Remember, always SEARCH BEFORE YOU NOMINATE.  It saves time for the rest of us.   D r e a m Focus  10:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I indeed searched. Please review WP:NBOOK - passing mentions like "Nonie Darwish, who is the author of..." are trivial coverage and do not qualify. Read the rules, and save time for the rest of us. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * you'll get far more reviews using only the title, instead of the title+subtitle. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting more hits, but still very little substantial coverage in reliable sources. No newspaper or mainstream magazine appears ever to have reviewed this book. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confer 15:01, 29 December 2010 (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.