Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion


 * 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 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion

 * — (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. It has received enough media attention to be notable. For example here is an interview about the book in Publishers Weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6368868.html?nid=2287 -- Karl Meier 13:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The book is quite notable, it has been featured on C-Span  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 further 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)
 * Delete per above. The book is not notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Any useful content can be merged into authors' article or Critism of Islam page. Jyothisingh
 * Keep Per Karl and Comment this sort of agenda pushing mass nomination should be banned. Kyaa the Catlord 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please assume good faith. It makes sense to nominate a group of similar pages if you feel that they are all similarly deletable. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AGF doesn't mean to put on blinders. This user is obviously trying to make a WP:POINT. Kyaa the Catlord 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep All books by this author nominated by this user, possible WP:POINT or something? Notable. F.F.McGurk 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep #348 in book sales at Amazon.com is impressive, as is the TV coverage. Criticism that the author is wrong or an editor doesn't like him are irrelevant to this discussion, and the standards stated by the nonminator for which books we should have articles about are not those established by Wikipedia. Edison 16:17, 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 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the author is already a NY Times Bestseller, any new books he writes are going to be notable by extension. (Compare to WP:BAND which states that all the alumbs of a notable band are considered notable...I don't see the difference here.) Tarinth 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Largely due to procedure as it seems to meet Notability (books). The book was the subject on Book TV on January 6 and another poster cited a Publisher's Weekly interview. These things I think make a book notable according to current guidelines. The nominator seems to want a stricter policy on the notability of books. I'm not necessarily opposed to a stricter policy, but I think a new policy needs to be discussed as AfDs alone will likely not create one.--T. Anthony 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, book published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite notable. Islamophobia is not a good reason to delete an article about a book, and neither is disagreement with the content of the book.--Sefringle 05:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Um, you do realise that this is a book that made the New York Times best-seller list? Even if we were to merge the content back into the article about the author, it would be essential to keep this entry as a redirect... and so even then, it doesn't need an AfD nomination. (And if you want to tighten the notability criteria for books, I'd suggest this one is very much a bridge too far as a test case...!) Andrewa 06:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and block User:Aminz from AfD's. Arrow740 06:41, 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 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it's a fact that it's thououghly debunked (and I don't doubt this, I don't know either way) then please add some references and/or external links to this effect to the article. Currently, all the links and references there seem "friendly". No change of vote. Andrewa 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep'. Sheesh.  Its a banned book; isnt that notable??. John Vandenberg 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not think that he himself is notable enough to have article on him. Creating article on each of his book is not justifiable. We can create section on his article instead. --- ALM 11:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This seems to be representative of the content of many if not all of the delete votes, so I think a reply is in order, in order to save everyone's time in the future. It appears to be purely an expression of a personal opinion. In terms of deletion policy, it has little relevance to the decision. Having voted myself, I won't be acting as closing admin, but if I were, these votes wouldn't count for very much, even if they were numerous enough to seem significant at first glance. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Book is a NYT bestseller! - Merzbow 00:23, 11 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 05:45, 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 10:05, 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.