Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator, as per below. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable book, empty stub.

gnews search 0 hits, google search returned no notable reviews, critique, analsysis, commentary, etc.

Would nominate for speedy, except it doesn't apply to books! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Would you be so kind as to press the "news" button in the find sources link above, and to review your statement that gnews searches returned zero hits? I'll admit that that search seems to miss this extensive review at the Guardian:, but if you believe that search returns nothing, I suspect there's an error in how you are doing gnews searches. --joe deckertalk to me 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you see, but when I press the "news" button in the find sources link above I get a Google news search page that states: 'Your search - "The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam" - did not match any news results.' and only gives me a link to the Wikipedia article. That has a lot to do with the url, which has tbs=ar:1 set, which means it is an "Archives" search instead of an "Any time" search. This was introduced on January 6 in this edit, in response to a request at Template talk:Find sources. I can't say I understand the purpose of the change. --Lambiam 19:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — However, the "Any time" news search does not give me any further hits.  --Lambiam 19:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weird, I only get about 8 returns from that search, but I do get 'em, and a few of them look signficant. Anyway, no worries, interface bugs happen, I ... suspected there was a bit wonky.  :)  Have a great week!.   --joe deckertalk to me 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google Scholar notes 306 citations to this book here, this journal article I don't have full access to, but GS snippets indicates it consideres the book "...the most detailed and comprehensive study of the group....", this journal article also appears to at least provide some coverage and kudos for the book, The Guardian has an extensive review of the book here, the New Yorker reviews the book behind this paywall, the book is singled out as a source on the topic here, and so on.  The Guardian provides half the firepower necessary for GNG, and I'm fairly convinced by the breadth of opaque-to-me resources, scholarly and otherwise that at least a second reliable, in-depth, independent source exists, if nothing else, the New Yorker review from 1968. There's also a paywalled review at the Times Literary Supplement from '67 or '68, but I haven't been able to get a word out of snippet-finding tools from it.  --joe deckertalk to me 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * withdrawn I am not sure why my WP:BEFORE failed in the gnews. I did not check scholar. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 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.