Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default to keep Jtkiefer  T - 22:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad

 * Delete. Non-notable.  Hal Lindsey wrote a lot of silly books that exploit paranoia about the apocalypse.  Why should this one get its own entry?  The only notable one of his was published 35 years ago and that one was trash too.  We already have entries for that and for the author, there is no reason to list this book. csloat 07:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete- No need for a redirect.--Irishpunktom\talk 09:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Entry for author is enough, we don't need every non-notable piece of written work ever made to have an entry.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 10:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article seems to be NPoV and it has some genuine information regarding it's subject. -- Karl Meier 18:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not trying to get you to change your vote, but you do realize this was listed because it is non-notable, not because of any POV issues, right? csloat 22:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the concern is not PoV, the concern is notability and finding dozens of entries on a search site does not mean it is notable. a.n.o.n.y.m   t 02:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per Karl Meier. My 1000th edit!! :) Borisblue 20:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Yahoo search finds dozens of entries on this book and Amazon has it available too, so it's clearly notable PMLF 23:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Hal Lindsey book, anyways notablity is not criteria for deletion. Klonimus 00:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote disregarded by closing admin. Jtkiefer  T - 22:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Anonymous editor.--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a notable book and seems to be NPOV. Carioca 01:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not terribly notable and the article doesn't give much information. Should be mentioned on author's page instead. -- Kjkolb 02:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I personally think Hal Lindsey is lunatic-fringe material, but his sales figures and media attention bespeak notability. MCB 05:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Just because Amazon carries it does not make it notable, and in fact, the Amazon sales rank is a rather dismal 149,187. However, it has been reviewed by a rather amazing 34 readers, which indicates it arouses considerable passion in those who do read it. Denni &#9775; 08:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 'keep and congratulations borisblue on your 1000 edits that is really great Yuckfoo 00:00, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.