Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onward Muslim Soldiers (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Unfortunately, there's a clear consensus that this book is notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Onward Muslim Soldiers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable book – fails WP:NBOOK absent significant (not brief) coverage in reliable (with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, rather than for pushing an agenda at the expense of accuracy) sources. Reliable mentions are trivial, eg. "Spencer, who wrote Onward Muslim Soldiers, said X" or footnoting it as an example of anti-Muslim rhetoric. Other sources are affiliated with Spencer (which would disqualify them even if they weren't already contained within the set "unreliable sources"), or coincidentally use this string of words without referring to his book (if you're looking for sources make sure you include "Spencer").

Article was kept at last AfD, but since then we have come to recognize that "every book is notable," "the author is notable so all his books are," "you're trying to censor the truth," "just keep it," etc. are not policy-based arguments against deletion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Undecided for now. I think the problem we might have with this discussion is that most of the sources that mention this book take a clear view on its content. Would that mean they were "pushing an agenda"? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't a book review generally take a position on the book? I'm talking about things like the review reprinted here, which is published by a right-wing Zionist organization. Is there a source you have found that you think might be suitable? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant that they will tend to agree or disagree with the ideas put forward in the text. Sorry if I was being unclear. I'm not sure I follow your other point. Are you saying that someone writing from a right-wing standpoint is unreliable? striking that, I'm not starting an argument. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I started to say last night, before giving up and going to bed, was that reliability does not depend on being right-wing or left-wing, zionist or anti-zionist. One unfortunate tendency which appears over and over again in these discussions is the idea that my side are telling the plain unvarnished truth but they are distorting the evidence and pushing an agenda. It really doesn't help. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd feel the same if we had an article from, I don't know, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid that tore the book to shreds. It's not about left or right, it's about whether the source a. has advocacy as its primary goal and b. lacks the reputation for fact-checking that WP:RS requires. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Robert Spencer (author). Fails the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. See also Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (2nd nomination). --Lambiam 11:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – Non-notable work of "topical non-fiction" — with a promotional function it would seem, given the prominent placement of the book publishers' bar code (ISBN number). Carrite (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is substantial RS coverage of this book.  I've added only some of it to the article just now.  Including: 1) a review devoted to the book in News Weekly that concluded that the book "deserves a wide reading"; 2) the discussion of the book by Khalid Hasan in Pakistan's  Daily Times in which he pointed out that the book was part of the “great Islamic conspiracy” and "not correct by a long shot", and 3) discussion of the book both in another book, and discussion of it in 4) a review devoted to the book in Arts & Opinion.  That suffices.  But further RS coverage can be sifted out of the 46 gnews hits and 591 gbooks hits. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're joking, right? News Weekly is the newsletter of a right-wing think tank, not an actual newspaper. The Citron book is just reprinting a review from another right-wing think tank. NBOOK requires coverage in reliable sources, not from anyone with a website and an opinion. And don't cite WP:GOOGLEHITS at me – I actually did the work of reading the Google hits, which you clearly didn't since you're claiming these sources are reliable and/or nontrivial. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why mention "right-wing": you clearly stated on 14th January (above), that political alignment was irrelevant. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also mentioned "think tank," but that doesn't seem to have dissuaded you from keeping an article on something that isn't covered in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ros – you say you read the sources. But you failed to alert your colleagues to the discussion of the book by the notable Khalid Hasan in Pakistan's  Daily Times.  (Source 1)  Or the book review – an entire review devoted to this book – in Arts & Opinion.  (Source 2 – giving us non-passing coverage in multiple RS sources, which is what we seek to satisfy GNG).  And whatever your personal difficulty with what you describe as (in your opinion) the politics of News Weekly it is an Australian current affairs magazine founded in 1941 that is a perfectly fine RS to rely on for the fact that the book has been reviewed in an RS.  (Source 3 – more than we need at this point).  And it was also discussed at significant length in the book (Source 4 – again, more than we need).  This is fairly open-and-shut.  And none of these discussions of the book are trivial, sentence-fragment mentions.  Rather, each discusses both the contents of the book, and the writer's view of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion that I should have named every source I found and explained why it was unreliable or trivial? Hasan is a short mention in an already-short opinion column. The mentions in the Free Lance-Star, Q&A, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram are also trivial (the latter two are interviews, too - "Spencer, whose latest book is Onward Muslim Soldiers, is now going to tell us how he feels about Muslims" is not significant coverage). As I've stated multiple times, the problem with News Weekly isn't its slant - after all, we accept Fox News as a basically reliable source - it's that it is not a newspaper but an organizational newsletter without the reputation for fact-checking which WP:RS requires. Citron is just reprinting a review from another think-tank without any RS qualifications; unreliable sources don't magically become reliable at second-hand. Arts and Opinion would probably not pass any kind of RS review either (as they don't write reviews in-house, they accept submissions - among other reasons). It's not the end of the world if Wikipedia doesn't cover every fringe anti-Muslim book out there; we don't have to bend or break our rules to give Robert Spencer another platform. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. In light of sources added. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can anyone with JSTOR access tell us if this contains a trivial mention or a substantial review? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's trivial (one of the things I referred to as "footnoted as an example of anti-Muslim rhetoric" above). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? It is one of the nine books that are the focus of the author's review.  I'm just guessing -- but I think that when Mark was asking if it was a trivial mention, he may not have in mind -- as you responded -- whether it was in your opinion "anti-Muslim" or "pro-Muslim", but rather whether it was a trivial passing mention, or something more substantial.  BTW, I've now reflected a couple of more reviews in the text of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I mean I actually read the article rather than looking at the first page, and the mention is trivial. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what you said -- see above. Could you perhaps cut and paste the text that relates to the book into the talk page?  The article clearly identifies this book as one of the nine that are the subject of the review.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well it looks like he tries to go over 9 books in 7 pages, so I tend to believe you that it was a trivial mention. I tend to think we should have lower inclusion guidelines for books than, say, BLPs or startup companies, but the references do seem to be fairly trivial here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nom has just deleted text, and a number of refs, from the article.  All reviews of and reactions to this book.  I restored the deletions -- see here to see the text and refs nom deleted.  And I opened up talkpage discussion, asking that nom not again delete the text and refs.  But nom has now deleted the text and the reviews refs, yet again.  These include:
 * Comment. Nom has just deleted text, and a number of refs, from the article.  All reviews of and reactions to this book.  I restored the deletions -- see here to see the text and refs nom deleted.  And I opened up talkpage discussion, asking that nom not again delete the text and refs.  But nom has now deleted the text and the reviews refs, yet again.  These include:


 * Mention of a March 2004 review of the book Onward in News Weekly, which stated that: "Spencer offers detailed, referenced accounts of how militant Muslims are at work in the West, and how many Western sympathisers have been duped by their words of peace and tolerance.... While we must do all we can to encourage Muslim moderation, we dare not ignore Muslim extremism. This book helps us to do both, and deserves a wide reading."


 * Mention that in her 2006 book The Indictment, Sabina Citron writes that the book Onward: "gives us a deep insight into the central political tenets of Islam." And she opines that the book should be "required reading" for all, but especially for the leaders in the West.


 * Mention that a 2008 review of the book Onward in Arts & Opinion by Bassam Michael Madany describes the book as a "much needed guide to understanding the true nature of Islam, and its attitude to the rest of the world".


 * --Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Our policies don't prohibit nominators, and those who have voiced delete opinions, from editing articles after they have gone on record that the article is beyond hope, beyond redemption. But almost all nominators avoid editing articles after they nominate them for deletion.  In my experience of the few nominators who do erase references and otherwise make substantive editorial changes to articles they nominated for deletion -- during the afd period, many turn out to be blocked for sockpuppetry, chronic incivility, or other serious lapses from policy.  Although our nominator seems to be an experienced participant, they don't seem to realize that individuals with less ability to assume good faith than I have would interpret their edits as signs of bad faith.  My sincere advice to our nominator would be to confine expressing their concerns over what they see as bad references in the afd they initiated.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Long Beach Press-Telegram reviewed it "But investigative journalist Robert Spencer, in his new book ``Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, argues that what we call ``Islamic extremism stems from a straightforward reading of the Koran and interpretative Islamic texts. On Nov. 10, I interviewed Spencer." You have to pay to read the rest of the article.  News Weekly offers a detailed review of the book.  So that's two reliable sources giving significant coverage to it.  The book was seen as notable enough for the writer to be on CNN, they mentioning the book that got him chosen. The Washington Times mentions the book but the full article is hidden behind a paywall. The Washington Times : Muslims in the military, Washington Times - Sep 25, 2003, According to Robert Spencer, author of the new book "Onward Muslim Soldiers," the Air Force "in July 2002 asked for help recruiting Muslim chaplains from ... "  Other things pop up as well from a Google news archive search(click the link at the top of the AFD, and add in "Spencer" to filter out any bad results).  Altogether I'd say its an obvious keep.   D r e a m Focus  18:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrases in the WP:N guideline were not selected at random such that you can discard them if you decide on a lark that you don't want them to apply today. What is it about significant (ie. not "Spencer, a talking head whose latest book is..., said in an interview...") and reliable (ie. not the newsletter of an agenda-based organization) that you are having trouble comprehending? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - Sufficient notability. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what the sources are there for. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I wish the book were not notable, but the sources are otherwise. They're in the article, and discussed above. A request for further proof does not seem constructive.  DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- our nominator asks if he or she had an obligation to mention every review they found wanting in the nomination. Daily Times is a Pakistani newspaper I cite all the time.  I certainly consider it a reliable source.  Approximately half the article in the Daily Times is devoted to Spencer's book.  So yes, I would appreciate an explanation as to why the nominator doesn't recognize this as a reliable source.    I agree with the original sentiment that the political orientation of an author does not erode a book's notability.  Regenery, this book's publisher, only publishes books from a particular orientation.  IIRC they are associated with that whole "Swift Boats" movement from 2004.  But since the book is covered by reliable sources that is irrelevant.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2012 (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.