Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)


 * 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. John254 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)

 * — (View AfD)

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see .Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, the media attention it has received, including the Fox News interview that we have a link to in the external link section, makes it notable. Another thing is that negative criticism doesn't make it any less notable. That Mr. Carl Ernst has commented on it's writer, actually helps establishing the writers and his books notability. -- Karl Meier 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The book is quite notable and aside from being a conroversial book in its own right has been the topic of numerous news reports as well--CltFn 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:CltFn created a page for each of Robert Spencer's books in order to promote Spencer's anti-Islam views. His views are controversial and not taken seriously by scholars to the best of my knowledge; he also runs a website that contains material that's arguably Islamophobic, as well as legitimate material. Most importantly, he isn't notable enough to have so many pages devoted to his views; the descriptions of his books can be added to his biography. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a lousy book and a fairly lousy page. Wikipedia would be no worse without it. But it may be fixable with some effort if someone with easy access to the book tries. One problem I have with such bad books is that I don't want to create demand for them, so I don't usually get them... --Stephan Schulz 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stephan, my argument is that there are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica.--Aminz 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an idea worth considering as most Encyclopedias would limit articles on books to the classics and a few additional works of historical significance. Few books written after 2000 would fit that. However traditionally that's not been how Wikipedia does things. For example Category:2005 books, the year this book came out, includes things like The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch or Dead Men Don't Leave Tips: Adventures X Africa. Related to this book we have an article on the, 2004, book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.--T. Anthony 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with this (Aminz's) view. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of books, including a lot of fairly obscure ones that may be less well-known than this one in the general population. See Settling Accounts: The Grapple (I'm reading this at the moment), Flying Colours (which I co-wrote), 1633 (novel) (which is fairly obscure), The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (which is more germane to this discussion - a much better book, but not, I fear, more notable), and so on. That's fine with me - WP:NOT paper.
 * Flying Colours (which I co-wrote). You're C. S. Forester? Cool! But I thought you were dead? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as everybody can easily see, my comment refers to the link (that I wrote all on my own ;-) and, by implication, to the Wikipedia article (which I co-wrote). I may have written the book in an earlier incarnation.... --Stephan Schulz 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the information about the books can be covered under the author's page. --Aminz 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per SlimVirgin. Jyothisingh 14:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: can people here actually discuss the issue of notability of this book instead of throwing around epithets like "anti-Islam" and "Islamophobic"? This is an Afd on a book, not a discussion of Spencer's website or his scholarly standing. If the nominator's reasoning is applied consistently, 90% of Wikipedia's articles on non-fiction books must be deleted. This is not necessarily a position I would disagree with, but we must tighten the existing policies to do so. Otherwise, the basis for the nomination seems to be at odds with the current Wikipedia practice. Beit Or 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable book by notable author. Kyaa the Catlord 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepAmazon sales rank of #586 makes it a notable book. The fact that someone criticized it or a Wikipedia editor does not approve of the authors political views are irrelevant, since Wikipedia in not censored and we are discussing notability.Edison 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination that does not cite policy in its deletion reasoning. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). The argument by analogy with Britannica is also outside of policy, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The argument against the author's "scholarship" is a content dispute and does not belong at AFD. If the author believes a merge is warranted, use appropriate templates for that proposal.--Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is about a book that is not too notable (per Aminz).Bless sins 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as clearly notable book by a NY Times Bestseller; is the nominator trying to make a WP:POINT by this and similar nominations? Tarinth 19:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a notable book. Even taking out Wikipedia, several Wikipedia mirrors, and several bookstores it gets 62,500 hits. That includes reviews or mentions from magazines that have articles of their own. It also got a few Google Scholar hits. We have articles on plenty of recent books that many, or most, might find offensive. For example In Defense of Internment, The Real Lincoln, or IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Being objectionable I don't think is seen as removal-worthy in itself.--T. Anthony 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This discussion shouldn't be about the user that created the article, the author of the book, or its contents. It should only be about the book itself. As shown above, the book's notable. Quack 688 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Everyone who wants articles about Robert Spencer's books deleted seems to because they criticize Islam. I wonder how that is in good faith. He is a scholar, he is notable, and his books are also notable.--Sefringle 05:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable, and much as I hate to say it, I can't see any reason for deleting this article except to try to suppress the POV of the book... which kinda proves the author's point. Andrewa 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Sefringle and CltFn. This nomination is very far fetched and says a lot about User:Aminz. Arrow740 06:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The fact that the book is thououghly debunked makes it no less notable. After all, We have an entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and these books are about the same as far as accuracy and honesty goes. --John Kenneth Fisher 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Dhartung. John Vandenberg 08:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - NYT bestseller! - Merzbow 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability overrides stupidity. --Calton | Talk 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Has anyone looked at the edit history of this article? There has been so much flack over Aminz doing a broadside of AfDs of articles on books by this one controversial author that the fundimental issue has been ignored ... this artice had unreferenced and cleanup because it lacked any WP:V citations ... that's what the tag said, "This article or section does not cite its references or sources." That was because the only claim of WP:N derived from simply having been written by a "notable" author to satisfy WP:BK ... several editors had independently put various tags on these stub articles, and other editors removed them ... those reverts escalted to this AfD and others, but it does not alter the fact that without citations, anything in this article (and the others) is just original research, and discussions of what the article is about, or any editor's opinions about the subject, have no place in this forum ... the real issue is, "Will we allow articles about books with no references to any reviews of the book simply because the author has an article in Wikipedia?" What happens when their claim of WP:N is based on how many articles already exist in Wikipedia about books they have written, and all of those articles were created by the same editor and/or their sockpuppets? I think that these AfDs simply represent a symptom of a systemic problem in Wikipedia, an alarming trend of bootstrapped notability without any verifiable independent non-trivial sources. &mdash; 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources is reason for a sources tag; if there is doubt that sources can be found, an Afd is appropriate. The article does not present any facts except that it is a book, who its author is, a quote from the author, and the ISBN.  I've added a source for the quote.  John Vandenberg 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment There are probably over ten thousand  articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeeding universally known go in. They just say notable. Furthermore, the comment that this book is controversial is not a  reason to keep it out, it is a reason to keep it in. If there is such criticism, it would demonstrate notability. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination.DGG 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. DGG 02:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia policy on books is not that restricted.  Being controversial Hitler's War, racist Mein Kampf, or discredited The Destruction of Dresden are not grounds for deletion.  Edward321 05:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep But notable criticism of the book has to be there for the sake of WP:NPOV, even if it is from partisan scholars. Of course, one must distinguish between criticism of Spencer and criticism of this specific book, with only the latter allowed in this article.Rumpelstiltskin223 10:07, 13 January 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.