Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (3rd 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe this book fails WP:NBOOK. Namely: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book 2. The book has won a major literary award. 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. 4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. How anyone can seriously claim this book (a series of essays) can meet this is beyond me.AusLondonder (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The proposer fails to make any case for deletion: just quoting the rules without explaining how it fails to meet them is pointless. Although it's not widely reviewed in the mainstream press, the article indicates multiple reviews: Asia Times, Publishers Weekly, Midwest Book Review, though some of these are no longer online. There's also coverage in National Review, mentions in other books, and brief notices in Library Bookwatch and First Things. Not all of these are nutty right-wing islamophobic bloggers, and the article offers a balanced account rather than a PR puff. If the sources aren't judged sufficient, it could be merged to Robert Spencer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC
 * Comment. For criteria 1, it has not received significant non-trivial published works. 2. Obviously it has not won any awards. 3. Nope. 4. Nope. 5. Definitely no. AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Plenty of RS already cited in the article, including influential journals and newspapers like The Middle East Journal and Asia Times. Nom may also have a WP:COI problem by PRODing (on the 29th) five articles ,,,, on books critical of Islam while elsewhere !voting Keep on obviously less worldly-publicly-visible entities like the Afghanistan International Bank. Also potential sock (two-week-old account whose first edit consisted of creating a large article with multiple sections containing complex forms). Pax 11:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for sticking to the issues and your demonstration of WP:GOODFAITH. AusLondonder (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the first article I created did not contain complex forms. Any forms I have used in any articles have been copied-and-pasted from other articles then edited. AusLondonder (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notability established, and no censorship on Wikipedia. Quis separabit?  14:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability is certainly not established according to the criteria at WP:NBOOK. For the censorship argument, are you seriously suggesting we keep an article that is not notable to ensure false accusations of censorship are not made?AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, still meets WP:GNG. Although the last two afds resulted in keep, see WP:NTEMP "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, ... Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered."Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:NBOOK is the relevant criteria.AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, no. GNG trumps everything else. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am astounded, that as of yet, no editor has used the criteria at WP:NBOOK to justify keeping this article, instead accusing me of bad faith, of being a sock, of having a conflict of interest, using the wrong criteria and using the 'censorship' excuse. What a disappointing deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the article The Myth of Islamic Tolerance be deleted, as I believe the article fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. As of yet, no editor has indicated how it meets WP:NBOOK, however consensus cannot be reached. AusLondonder (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep You wanted comments, so here's one. All WP:NBOOK asks for is 2 independent non-trivial RS reviews ("The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"), and this book has had more than that. Launching an RFC is forum-shopping, and beating a dead horse. Don't be surprized if people wonder about your motives. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Frankly, I am surprised. What motives are you suggesting I have? A book review does not qualify - are you saying any book to ever receive a book review, no matter how negative, in a credible source is notable? AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep citing WP:NBOOK, now try reading it. It's pretty clear. What the review says is immaterial. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did not believe it refered to book reviews. If that is the case, virtually every book is entitled to a Wiki article. I'm quite disgusted with how uncivil you've been here AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment to AusLondonder (talk). Quote from WP:NBOOK - "A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article."  Also, Johnbod's allusion to 'a dead horse' may refer to WP:DROPTHESTICK?:) Coolabahapple (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it meets WP:GNG much less. By the way, try and remain civil. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The article currently boasts what appear to be nine references, almost all of which are exclusively coverage of the book itself. The nominator him/herself quotes WP:NBOOK, which explicitly states that "reviews" are acceptable coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep''' - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK as per other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG, as being reported on and cite, possibly WP:SPA nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - You really are a nasty individual User:GuzzyG. How dare you come to this page and throw around those sort of false and malicious allegations in total violation of deletion discussion guidelines. Notice at the top of the page it says 'that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive' - but you ignore every word to spew your lies. How about you check my contributions before you talk such rubbish. AusLondonder (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way does calling GuzzyG a nasty individual not violate the very guideline that you just cited? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, the article's references and external links are riddled with book ads, paywalls, and outright dead links. I've tagged them as such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, have fixed some of the links so there is now one dead link, and two that require subscriptions - although one is to HighBeam Research with which wikipedia has an agreement (see WP:HighBeam) so should it be tagged as such? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on the links. I think clarifying the HighBeam link with WikiP/HighBeam relationship details (and/or a link thereto) is an excellent idea. Thanks again, --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep What can I say? The sources are there. I looked. I just added one by Bruce Bawer to the page. Case made by Nom adds up to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is why this should be Speedy.  Letting the AFD tag stand on the page is a form of harrassment of an unpolular idea.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - unambiguously exceeds the guidelines of GNG and NBOOK#1.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Plenty of sources to show notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2015 (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.