Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't


 * 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 redirect. There is strong consensus that the article as is does not merit stand-alone status. There is less clear consensus on whether that judgment would change if the article were expanded in line with the sources currently included and those located during this AfD, but in the event that a separate, expanded article is restored the question of whether material merits stand-alone may best be settled through article talk space as set out at Help:Merge. The book reviews cited in the current article have been transplanted to the author article in such a way that GFDL compliance is not a concern, and there is no other unique material to merit a current merge procedure. Reviews found during this AfD have also been added, with the exception of the Detroit Free Press review, which is coming up 404, file not found. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This book appears to be non-notable per WP standards. The only sources in the article are two Internet-based conservative commentary sites, The American Thinker and WorldNetDaily, neither of which meet WP:V standards. The only reliable sources I could find was a brief, quite negative review in the Detroit Free Press. I could find no evidence that it has won any significant literary award, and the author is not so historically notable that all of his works need articles. Thus, none of the notability criteria in WP:NOTBOOK appear to be fulfilled, and I recommend Deletion. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 07:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Robert Spencer. The book is presumably notable in the context of Spencer's views, and a paragraph in his own article would be appropriate. EALacey (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per EALacey. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I've done a search of news sources using Factiva and have found no reviews of it, so I concur with Eleland's comments about the lack of notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect as proposed. If more information gets added about the book, we can split it back out then. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Though my gut instinct is to say delete, a redirect seems more appropriate. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with author, ensuring that the two external links survive as footnotes or other links (also the negative review quoted by eleland). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per above argument. Annamonckton (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Reviews appear to meet WP:V and WP:N.  http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Religion+of+Peace%3F%3A+Why+Christianity+Is+and+Islam+Isn%27t&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&um=1  Hobit Given the relative ease of finding these sources (Including the Detroit Free Press) I'm a bit worried that NPOV biases may be playing an unintentional role in this AfD. (Sorry, way off base).  (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if improved - book seems notable enough for an article if the article is expanded using the sources available from Google. U$er (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (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.