Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad (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 delete; clearly fails notability requirements and there is a complete lack of sourcing, reviews, etc. -- ChrisO 21:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad
AfDs for this article: 


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article removed from PROD as it previously had an AfD (which resulted in No Consensus). Reason was: "This book's notability has not been demonstrated". Google also does not return any reliable sources that discuss the book and it fails the WP:BK criteria. → AA (talk) — 08:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   -- → AA (talk) — 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no WP:RS to expand the article with. All the GNews hits are either unrelated or consist of articles written by the author of the book. cab 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to a Merge and redirect to Hal Lindsey either, per Smerdis. But I'm not voting "Keep" because I interpret WP:BK #5 "historically significant" as applying to people like Shakespeare, not this guy ... cab 06:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, nn. Per Smerdis, below, changing to no opinion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit weakly. As a Christian, Hal Lindsey's opinions about prophecy strike me as not only wrong, but evil: he's beating the drums for the State of Israel because he hopes Arab-Israeli conflict will force God's hand and bring Armageddon, and thus the Second Coming, sooner.   But he is a major, major figure in publicizing this belief system, and as such falls under WP:BK criterion 5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources."  The book has also attracted notice outside the right-wing dispensational Christian market, and even attracted the notice of the Council on Foreign Relations. I am sure that further reviews can be had in Christian publications.  It grieves my heart that there are people capable of swallowing Lindsey's evil malarkey, but it is a notable book by a notable author. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Lindsey can be considered "historically significant" for all of his works to be notable. The example given in WP:BK is "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study". I don't believe Lindsey fits this type of criteria. → AA (talk) — 12:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into the late great Hal Lindsey. Peaked with TLGPE, spent the rest of his life revising Biblical prophecy to fit today's news.  Mandsford 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge He has written a number of books of various degrees of rationality, but they only get an article if they are separately individually notable. As Mandsford says, his first one probably was, but this one has not been shown to be., I certainly do not consider him among the few major cultural figure all of whose books are automatically notable . DGG (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If we go around deletting small book articles, they will never get a change to develop. --CltFn 02:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the first step is to show the book has some notability, or there is nothing to develop. Long or small articles on non-notable books are equally unencyclopedic. If the book ever becomes notable, as shown by 3rd party RSs, then an article can be written. As for any subject. DGG (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the book is notable. RS1900 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- agree with above keepers, book clearly of note, irrespective of personal views.JJJ999 01:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per cab. I do not agree with the assertion that this author fits under criterion 5 of WP:BK. Zain 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Book makes no claim for notability under stated Wikipedia's policy for books. Jayran 01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - without prejudice for recreation if notability can be definitively established as per WP:BK. John Carter 19:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. i don't think the author meets the aforementioned criterion of WP:BK. in the absense of reliable third party coverage, there is no evidence that the article subject is notable for an encyclopedia.  ITAQALLAH   13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think this book is notable. Are there any reviews of it?Vice regent 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ranked #54,548 in sales at Amazon, nn. Carlossuarez46 22:02, 2 October 2007 (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.