Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Fatwa under International Law


 * 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. Proposed merge target inexistent.  Sandstein  12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear Fatwa under International Law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Found no sources that mention the book itself, so this book fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 01:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can't read Farsi, but here, here, and here are three news articles about/reviews of the book. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The first two links are copies of the same report. One of these sites is Tasnim News Agency. The third link is a copy of this report by the Fars News Agency. Both seem to be too closely affiliated with the Iranian government to count as RSs. Eperoton (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted that last night without having much of a chance to think it over. I agree with you. To go a bit further, freedom of the press in Iran is not great, and there is not too much guidance on understanding RS in such cases. My feeling is that it is up to us to make such a call. That is, government-influenced press in Iran can be used to satisfy V, but probably not to satisfy NPOV, but editors should use their judgement (I think using judgement to handle Irani government-influenced sources is better than out-of-hand dismissal, for what it is worth). In this case, without an independent source in-depth about the book, I agree that this article has issues with WP:ARTSPAM/WP:COATRACK and should be deleted. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest further that if all the independent (of the author) coverage we have for a book are from outlets that can be considered mouthpieces of a government -- any government -- then having an article on it is rather close to channeling government propaganda. So, barring additional coverage, I would also go with delete. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * keep Hi. before of anything I have to tell something about the importance of book from international law. Regardless of the content of the book, which is arbitrary for readers to whether see it as a propaganda or not, I think if we have see the book from political view and its importance then there is no POV.Also we know that according to Notability there is no challenge between quality of sources and notability of subject--m,sharaf (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we can find RSs to demonstrate the book's importance, then we can keep it. I've commented on what I see as insufficiency of the sources presented so far, and I haven't seen evidence that better sources exist. Eperoton (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- poorly written page on a subject that lacks notability and significance. Possibly SYNTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Nuclear Fatwa  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: half of the article is a WP:COATRACK about the fatwa itself instead of the book reviewing it; the other half is poorly sourced. To that, add a dash of WP:SYNTH and sprinkle with WP:TNT. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2017 (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.