Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea With Terrorists


 * 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. A fair amount of research has been done and the consensus is that sufficient sources do not exist.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tea With Terrorists

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Self-published book; appears to fail WP:NBOOK. A quick google reveals plenty of results - thanks to a cobweb of promotional content associated with the author. Difficult to have an article on this topic without promoting the author and their fringe position, since few independent/mainstream sources have paid any attention to it. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article was previously PRODded by ; the article's creator removed the prod tag bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rahulchic sneakily edited my comment. I have now undone that. Do not put words in my mouth. bobrayner (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rahulchic refactored other people's comments again; I've had to restore the comment above. Please stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rahulchic deleted my comments again with accusations of bias. This is disruptive; stop now. If you're in a hole, the first step is to put the shovel down.bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rahulchic deleted my comments yet again; I've restored them yet again. Rahulchic, let me make this clear to you in short words: If you remove and edit other people's comments and then keep on hitting the revert button, you will get blocked from en.wikipedia. Acting like this does not help your cause. bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * bobrayner Sorry for the reversions but I did that to revert your pushing my answer to your accusation (05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC) down inside the discussion page to make it disappear. I wanted my answer to be near your accusation but you were not allowing it. Anyways please comment on the topic on hand (and also give others space to discuss). I have developed the article and improved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic (talk • contribs)


 * This article can't be deleted simply because it is on a controversial topic and enrages Islamists.


 * Section on Self-publication says: In this regard, it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establish non-notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NBOOK Therefore, it is clear that self-publication is no ground for deletion of an article without any doubts on the content of the article itself.


 * The novel 'Tea With Terrorists' is a result of research which includes the authors' visit to 120 countries and interviewers of several terrorist groups. Though it is hated and disagreed by Islamists, it is a fine example of research which are on controversial topics. The author is a graduate of University of Southern California and an entrepreneur. The book has had wide media coverage and is still debated in circles.


 * Therefore it should not be deleted. Rahulchic (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not enough reason for deletion. Thanks a lot for the reviews. Here are some of my points:


 * 1) Notability: Checkout the Amazon's page about the book http://www.amazon.com/Tea-Terrorists-Who-They-Kill/dp/0971448116. This book has received 3.3 out of 5 Stars. This book has got 67 customer reviews on Amazon's website. I hope it does tell something.


 * 2) I agree that some people want it to be "deleted", even as most of their objections could be "worked upon" and "improved". Let us help build this page into a reliable one.


 * 3) We have books' pages like this: [Maverick] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_%28book%29 which don't mention any single source! But perhaps it is not marked for deletion because it doesn't provoke anyone. This book on politics and terrorism gets a lot of eyeballs.


 * 4) Note about author: I had written the original piece and had included a section about the author(s). Because I thought it was important for readers to know about the authors and their background, especially for this book on this controversial topic. It helps the readers to know the background of the authors so that they can understand that the authors are indeed well educated, qualified, and may be unbiased. But if we want to remove the section about authors, we are free to do that.


 * 5)If there are more complaints, we can discuss those on the Article's Discussion page itself. Rahulchic (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Improved. Hi all, I have edited the main article and (1) removed the section about authors, (2) added more content and review on the book itself. It is looking much balanced now. Please review and if we agree, let us remove the deletion tag. If you have more suggestions, please share. Rahulchic (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't added any reliable sources, which is the reason the article is currently up for deletion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Improved. While we want more authors to contribute articles and time to Wikipedia, it is is shocking to see how some members are fighting to delete content from Wikipedia... Now that the article is improved and balanced, I hope it is alright to leave it at peace. Rahulchic (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Working to improve the article.


 * Hi everyone,


 * I have done some more improvements on the main article, each backed by credible references.


 * In the main body I have inserted the following:


 * 1) The book and its analysis of Islam was criticized by Muslims. Kenyan Muslims criticized the book terming it blasphemous to their faith and compared it with Salman Rushdie's controversial Satanic Verses, and even demanded its ban. Using: BBC Monitoring international report http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10248CD172DAF91F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM


 * 2) and has claimed having spent thousands of hours studying the Koran and interviewing Muslim terrorists. Using: Time for Everyone to Denounce Radical Islam http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2681717&page=1#.TwrNBoH5v4s


 * Also, I have inserted in external links section links to Google Books and Bernes and Noble webpage which have many reviews and synopsis of this book. Google Books: Tea with terrorists: who they are, why they kill, what will stop them Bernes and Noble: Tea with terrorists: who they are, why they kill, what will stop them


 * I also protest against bobrayner who is editing my page again and again. Request bobrayner to give me and others some time. Please understand that the article is work-in-progress and frequent unnecessary conflicts should be avoided. Rahulchic (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahulchic (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: bobrayner, I had not edited your comment but I had made it "complete". You talked about me but didn't give full picture: when you had said that I had deleted the prod tag, I had done that only after editing and improving the article. And I thought others should also know that, hence I put that along with your comment.


 * Improve but Do not delete I see that some members have first marked this article for deletion and then are finding new faults into this. An article which has been there for more than 2 years! Let us improve it and make it best for readers. But there is no reason it should be deleted based on personal biases. 168.87.3.33 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This infrequently used IP probably counts as an SPA for purposes of this discussion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This IP also edited one of Rahulchic's comments, so I suppose it's Rahulchic trying to add a second !vote whilst logged out. Please bear in mind that this should be about policy and consensus, not about mere vote counting... bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. So far the sources on the page do not seem reliable. One is a link to the book's page (a primary source), there's links to non-notable blogs that review the book, there's links that only briefly and I mean briefly mention the book on a side panel, things that have been written by the author (more primary sources), and sites that just don't seem like they meet the requirements for a reliable source. The Daniel Pipes page looks good, but it mentions Winn and not Tea with Terrorists. The biggie here is that the sources must be about the book. Articles about Winn would be best mentioned on his article (which is also having problems with reliable sources, I might add). Even if Winn is found to be a notable person, notability is not automatically transferred to the book. Even the bigger NYT bestselling authors don't have an entry for every book because not every book they've written has been notable. I'll try to do a search to see what I can find, but so far the entries on the article here aren't solid enough to keep the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Additional. I'm going to remove the bits that aren't about the book itself or aren't reliable from the entry. Remember, this is an article about the BOOK. NOT about Winn. He has an entry already. This is about the book and not about the author.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment. I'm removing the big lengthy section that talks about the authors, where you can get their books, and where they've been interviewed. Again, this is about Tea With Terrorists, NOT the authors. This should already be on their own articles, not on the book's page. I removed all of the cruft from the article. My biggest concern with the article is that rather than discuss the book, it went into detail about the authors and the controversey that the authors have received. The only things that have actually mentioned TWT were primary sources from the authors. There is one single Bloomberg article that briefly mentions the book, but so briefly that it's really more of a trivial source at best. I'm not saying delete, but this article needs a lot of work. People have been making it more of a political soapbox for Winn than an actual encyclopedic entry about the book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Make notable or delete A broad google search of the title and author came up with three more minor references. Probably not enough to make it notable enough to be covered here. Info belongs in his article. CarolMooreDC 17:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A brief look at the references show that they are indeed minor- very minor. The East African Standard might be a good article, but it's hidden behind a paywall and we're unable to verify whether or not the article is in-depth enough to count as a reliable source. I'm having a pretty hard time finding sources to show notability. Most of what's out there is on the websites that aren't really what Wikipedia would consider to be notable. There's enough coming up to show that Winn does indeed seem to merit an article (although the page desperately needs to be cleaned up), but not enough to show that this book merits an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete or redirect back to Craig Winn. I tried to find sources for this, but there's just not anything out there. There's just enough for Winn to squeak by on notability guidelines, but that notability is not transferred automatically to his writings. That the article was mostly written to be a secondary biography about the author rather than to be an encyclopedic entry for the actual book was pretty telling that this just lacks individual notability. There's brief and incidental mentions, but not enough to show the coverage needed to warrant an entry to itself. At most this should be a redirect back to the author's page. I'd say merge, but most of the info on this page is just an author bio and is already on the author's entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete. All mentions in reliable sources are trivial; there simply isn't enough coverage for a WP:NBOOK pass for this self-published book. (CricketSong is the name of Winn's self-publisher - it prints only his books.) Tokyogirl makes a good point about the article itself belying the book's utter non-notability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete self-published book which lacks notability, although I guess we can turn the title into a redirect to his article. I'm not happy that his article says "He has published these books through the Cricketsong Books imprint, a division of Virginia Publishers." without mentioning that Virginia Publishers is owned by The Winn Company. Dougweller (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment See Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom. Dougweller (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have viewed the Wikipedia article on Tea_With_Terrorists and I don't understand why it is put for deletion. It is alright and has not tried blaspheme or anything in a biased manner. It also has so many references which I find missing on so many Wikipedia articles. Otherwise you will have to delete so many articles! But this one is good, keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.68.38 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This IP is also probably the article creator logged out, going by the writing/posting style and edit history. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roscelese for turning into a false detective :) It was not me.
 * Thanks talk I took note of this comment and tried to see some more reviews on Wikipedia:


 * Some samples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Marketers_Are_Liars => Contains Amazon.com as reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Brand Contains no references at all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great Contains blogs as external links and no other ref.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_New_Thing => Two liner review. No reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Change => One line review. No reference.

Now these are not the only ones having such problem. These are only samples. But these have not been deleted. Perhaps because there has not been a fine networking like we have of "delete anti-Islamic texts" everywhere.

Btw, Bobrayner and Dougweller have edited the Wikipedia page; are they satisfied now? Some of their edits have left the article with fewer references than before - as if skies will fall if I use amazon.com link in the Wiki article.

Still waiting for Wikipedia moderators. We are not voting here for anything. We want an unbiased decision. My take is that the present shape of the article is better than 80% of book reviews available on Wikipedia. Let it remain there and spend our energies in better things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahulchic (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:AFD as I've asked? What we are doing here is trying to agree if this book meets our criteria for notability. We aren't voting but we are casting what we refer to as !Votes, and our arguments should be based on our policies and guidelines. It really doesn't matter for this AfD if there are other bad articles out there. I've nominated one of the books you list for deletion and removed Amazon.com from another. We don't have moderators, we have Administrators, such as me. Someone, not necessarily an Administrator, will look at the arguments after this has been open for 7 days and decide on the basis of the policy based arguments whether this should be deleted or not. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I wasted 30 minutes of my time looking for any sort of coverage beyond user reviews and blogs. Nothing. This book has had 8 or so years to achieve notability since it was first published. That's plenty long enough. If it can't become notable on its own, there is no reason for Wikipedia to help it along. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 10 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.