Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Final 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 06:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Final Jihad
Delete, conspiracycruft. Fails WP:BK, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #495,645 in Books, multiple unsourced claims. Was proded, deproded on the grounds of “deprod, seems to be a non-vanity book” Brimba 03:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete NN cruftvertisement. --Tbeatty 03:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN - in 112 out of 10,000+ libraries per worldcat GabrielF 04:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; non-notable conspiracycruft, poorly sourced. --MCB 05:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep non-vanity book. I see no reason at all to delete besides people not liking the topic (this is listed on Gabriel's "conspiracy" deletion noticeboard). WP:BK is not a guideline; it is a proposal someone made that does not have consensus. Note that this is a 1996 book, so it's no shock the Amazon rank isn't high. Plenty of today's books with articles will have low sales in 2016. Derex 07:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable published work. Catchpole 07:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment you may want to expand this reasoning, it sounds as if you are arguing that Wikipedia should have articles on every published work to date. --Nuclear Zer0 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per GabrielF and failing WP:BK. I think the idea behind WP:BK is to prevent books that sell well that vanish forever, books that so easily disappear really arent that notable to deserve an article, this isnt a book repository and there is no reason all books should have an article, especially one written by a non-notable person that has not won any awards or particular publicity. --Nuclear Zer0 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs sourcing and the like, give it a month or two, renom if it doesn't improve. *Sparkhead  12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete n' stuff. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Catchpole: Verifiable published (wholly non-notable) work. Eusebeus 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BK, in that: (1) the book's author does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his work as a writer; (2) has not been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theatres; (3) has not won a non-trivial literary award; (4) is not taught at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country;(5) has not been the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews in works meeting our standards for reliable sources (reviews in periodicals that review thousands of books a year with little regard for notability, such as Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal and Kirkus Reviews do not meet this criterion); and (6) has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience (this includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews).  Morton devonshire 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Tbeatty. - Crockspot 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Morton devonshire. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. GeorgeC 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Article is an article about a published book. Whether people agree or disagree with the content, it deserves to be covered in Wikipedia--CltFn 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Morton devonshire  ITAQALLAH   14:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Morton devonshire. BhaiSaab talk 16:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no evidence that the book meets WP:BK, and that is the best standard we have thus far for judging it. Existence is not a sufficient basis for inclusion for any type of thing.  There is no evidence of reliable sources discussing the book, so no reason to believe it meets WP:N either.  GRBerry 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as I tagged this with notability questions a while back. Arbusto 08:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Keep the author though. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated and per the points made by Morton devonshire. JungleCat    talk / contrib  17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable and completely lacking in reputable, reliable, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 03:14, 7 November 2006 (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.