713:, that the sources should be independent of the book itself (note the clarification below, which specifically excludes sources "where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.") Looking at the WP:NB talk page, it seems that the issue of "notability deriving from sales figures" is one that's come up before and has been rejected as a criterion. I can sort of see the point in that, given the appearance of trivial things like
288:, there is a smattering of coverage, but I agree — I haven't found anything that is both non-trivial and published in fully reliable sources. (I say "fully reliable" because I'm not all that familiar with some of the conservative and U.S. Jewish-community sources at issue.) Also, it apparently made it to #12 on the NYT bestseller list
184:
notability. I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. I've found a number of mentions in passing, but no actual reviews of it. The mentions in passing are basically a small number of interviews with the
669:
Frankly, the guideline appears to needs work, it defies common sense since appearing at the top of the New York Times bestseller list is obviously notable. And actually on quick perusal, it appears the book does in fact meet the first criteria which includes television reviews, since the author has
402:
are less notable than this. I don't think we have a clear enough policy in general in regard to both "pro" and "anti" Islam books but I think we need to so that we can support neutrality across articles and eliminate systemic bias of either deleting "anti" Islam books and keeping "pro" ones or vice
732:
I suppose I can see the logic of a book's notability not being based on exposure on the public talk circuit, which is really mostly about marketing. I am a bit surprised that after being on the NYT Bestseller's list and being highlighted on these major talk shows, there doesn't seem to be any book
453:" is likewise generally regarded as an invalid argument. Second, in response to Eleland, you're right that CltFn did create a number of articles on books critical of Islam. Several have been deleted after being PRODded or through AfD (I nominated one of them - see
733:
reviews of substance out there that I can find. Mind you, I still think the guideline has set the bar too high on book inclusion, but then I would find an informative article on just about any book valuable and see no good reason to be exclusionary. --
242:. Please bear in mind that deletion discussions aren't votes and their outcome is determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. Unsubstantiated assertions aren't useful in helping to determine a course of action.
753:
I've not looked at the timing in any detail, but it wouldn't surprise me if the book's appearance on the bestseller lists was directly related to its exposure on the public talk circuit. The exposure is actually
196:. As for the other criteria of notability, it certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author cannot be described as
717:
books in the bestseller lists. Brief public popularity doesn't automatically equal historical notability - after all, what is the notability of the #12 book on the NYT bestseller list of 11 March 1908? --
235:), was banned by the Knowledge (XXG) community in January 2008 for extensive disruptive editing. I've not notified him of this discussion for the obvious reason that he can't participate in it.)
213:"The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment."
446:
758:
about marketing - post-publication interviews, talks etc. are invariably arranged by the author's or publisher's publicist with the specific intention of boosting sales. --
165:
403:
versa. That being said, I favor inclusionism and would like to keep but I don't want to keep this one if it will create bias when other books of similar note are removed.
454:
238:
I realise that some editors may have strong views on the book's political thesis but please confine comments to whether or not the book meets the criteria set out in
194:
655:
As mentioned above, appearing on a bestseller list isn't actually a notability criterion. We have to use the criteria we have, not the ones you wish we had. :-) --
338:
As I said above, "Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to
Knowledge (XXG) standards, to support any recommendations that you make." What criteria of
363:
Notability has nothing to do with the particular POV expressed by a given book. This book isn't notable, and it doesn't matter what the subject matter is.
204:, like Shakespeare or Lincoln). One "external resource" is linked from the article - a speech by the author that in no way corroborates its notability.
670:
made rounds on the talk show circuit discussing the book. There are interviews with conservative hosts Laura
Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Townhall.com
500:
320:
Knowledge (XXG) isn't the daily kos. 'Conservative' publications still count. Since when is it 'incendiary' to write about muslim terrorists?
295:
views of the author. IMO a single review from a mainstream publication, even if it was just a few sentences, would justify flipping my vote. <
588:
pending outcome of this AFD. I'm not sure if it is proper for redirect pages, but it might be desirable to leave the existing categorization so
132:
127:
136:
217:"'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable."
503:
to have spent some time on New York "Times
Political Best Seller" list. Objections to the creator and content notwithstanding, we have
457:). I've reviewed the rest and am satisfied that they meet the notability criteria. This one didn't, hence this deletion discussion. --
119:
380:
per nom, the publication in question is not notable and does not appear to have non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources.
17:
415:
That may well be the result of a single, now banned, editor cultivating a walledgarden of such articles. I'm in favor of applying
589:
399:
215:
Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source:
525:
504:
450:
339:
244:
Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to
Knowledge (XXG) standards, to support any recommendations that you make.
239:
208:
173:
263:
Author may be notable but the book is not, in my humble opinion. No articles about it in google news that are part of the
600:
515:
432:
308:
795:
36:
686:
419:
evenly whenever articles come up for deletion, and proposing non-notable books for deletion whenever I find them. <
232:
84:
51:
442:
794:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
767:
748:
727:
704:
664:
650:
623:
604:
576:
537:
519:
487:
466:
436:
410:
390:
372:
351:
329:
312:
280:
254:
100:
67:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
291:, which actually leads me to be surprised that there's not more coverage, especially given the, shall we say,
671:
325:
123:
763:
723:
660:
533:
462:
347:
250:
619:
483:
407:
368:
274:
416:
631:. Being polemical doesn't make it non-notable, if anything notoriety increases notability. Being
572:
759:
719:
656:
560:
529:
458:
343:
246:
682:
632:
479:
289:
678:
597:
512:
427:
321:
303:
115:
107:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
528:(I'm a bit surprised by that omission). However, merging sounds like a workable solution. --
585:
552:
548:
496:
198:"so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable"
78:
556:
615:
404:
364:
269:
226:
91:
58:
710:
177:
193:
article of Dec 5, 2006 that mentions the book in connection with a speech by the author
568:
381:
181:
593:
564:
508:
420:
296:
153:
734:
690:
636:
222:
674:
189:
brief (basically a short PR puff that promotes a book to retailers) and a
221:(I should note that the editor who created and maintained the article,
207:
It's not enough for a book to be mentioned only in passing (that's why
714:
202:"a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study"
172:
Polemical book that does not appear to meet any of the criteria of
524:
Oddly enough, "appears on a bestseller list" isn't a criterion in
788:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
267:
press, all 3 are conservative publications or brief mentions.
709:
I saw those interviews but they fail the first criterion of
445:(the argument that it is has long been regarded as one to
581:
160:
149:
145:
141:
455:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom
200:(a sample indicator for "historical significance" is
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
798:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
211:talks of non-trivial references). To quote:
551:, no afd necessary. If the article on
687:presented the book on Book TV CSPAN-2
635:certainly makes it notable enough. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
507:, but the article is very sparse. /
673:. She also discusses her book in
526:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
340:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
240:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
209:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
174:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
24:
679:this Hannity and Colms interview
590:Category:Books critical of Islam
400:Category:Books critical of Islam
342:do you think the book meets? --
683:this Duke University interview
633:#12 on the NYT Bestseller list
1:
447:avoid in deletion discussions
592:still links to this item. /
499:. Sole book by this author.
73:NB: Most of the content was
443:notability is not inherited
815:
768:22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
749:07:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
728:23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
705:14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
665:08:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
651:08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
624:05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
101:15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
68:13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
605:15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
577:12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
555:is itself judged to fail
538:12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
520:12:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
488:09:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
467:11:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
437:07:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
411:06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
391:20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
373:23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
352:23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
330:23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
313:21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
281:20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
271:The special, the random,
255:20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
791:Please do not modify it.
559:, consider merging into
32:Please do not modify it.
584:. Redirect article to
185:author, a Jan 1, 2007
398:, plenty of books in
276:the lovely Merkinsmum
441:Two points: first,
675:this CNN interview
561:Criticism of Islam
451:other stuff exists
603:
575:
518:
388:
187:Publishers Weekly
116:Because They Hate
108:Because They Hate
96:
63:
806:
793:
746:
743:
740:
737:
702:
699:
696:
693:
685:. Gabriel also
648:
645:
642:
639:
596:
586:Brigitte Gabriel
571:
553:Brigitte Gabriel
549:Brigitte Gabriel
511:
497:Brigitte Gabriel
386:
382:
277:
272:
178:reliable sources
163:
157:
139:
98:
94:
90:
87:
79:Brigitte Gabriel
65:
61:
57:
54:
44:The result was
34:
814:
813:
809:
808:
807:
805:
804:
803:
802:
796:deletion review
789:
744:
741:
738:
735:
700:
697:
694:
691:
646:
643:
640:
637:
384:
275:
270:
159:
130:
114:
111:
97:
92:
85:
83:
64:
59:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
812:
810:
801:
800:
783:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
626:
609:
608:
607:
542:
541:
540:
490:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
393:
375:
357:
356:
355:
354:
333:
332:
315:
283:
191:Michigan Daily
170:
169:
110:
105:
104:
103:
89:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
811:
799:
797:
792:
786:
785:
784:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
751:
750:
747:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
716:
712:
708:
707:
706:
703:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
649:
634:
630:
627:
625:
621:
617:
613:
610:
606:
602:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
517:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
489:
485:
481:
477:
474:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
434:
431:
430:
425:
423:
418:
414:
413:
412:
409:
406:
401:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
379:
376:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
314:
310:
307:
306:
301:
299:
294:
290:
287:
284:
282:
279:
278:
273:
266:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
245:
241:
236:
234:
231:
228:
224:
219:
218:
214:
210:
205:
203:
199:
195:
192:
188:
183:
179:
175:
167:
162:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
95:
88:
80:
76:
72:
71:
70:
69:
66:
62:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
790:
787:
782:
755:
628:
611:
565:Islamophobia
544:
492:
475:
428:
421:
395:
383:
377:
360:
322:Nick mallory
317:
304:
297:
292:
285:
268:
264:
260:
243:
237:
229:
220:
216:
212:
206:
201:
197:
190:
186:
171:
82:
74:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
612:Weak delete
478:per nom. --
286:Weak delete
176:and has no
616:Bless sins
505:notability
480:Be happy!!
417:WP:NOTBOOK
365:PelleSmith
293:incendiary
265:mainstream
385:ITAQALLAH
756:entirely
614:per nom.
449:), and "
233:contribs
166:View log
563:and/or
501:Appears
396:Comment
133:protect
128:history
760:ChrisO
720:ChrisO
715:sudoku
681:, and
657:ChrisO
582:Merged
557:WP:BIO
530:ChrisO
476:Delete
459:ChrisO
378:Delete
361:Delete
344:ChrisO
261:Delete
247:ChrisO
182:verify
161:delete
137:delete
93:(talk)
75:merged
60:(talk)
46:delete
711:WP:NB
547:into
545:merge
493:Merge
435:: -->
433:edits
424:eland
311:: -->
309:edits
300:eland
223:CltFn
164:) – (
154:views
146:watch
142:links
86:Maxim
77:into
53:Maxim
16:<
764:talk
724:talk
689:. --
661:talk
629:Keep
620:talk
573:(𒁳)
534:talk
484:talk
463:talk
429:talk
405:gren
369:talk
348:talk
326:talk
318:Keep
305:talk
251:talk
227:talk
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
81:. --
745:el
701:el
647:el
594:edg
569:dab
509:edg
495:to
408:グレン
180:to
766:)
742:er
726:)
698:er
677:,
663:)
644:er
622:)
567:.
536:)
486:)
465:)
422:el
371:)
350:)
328:)
298:el
253:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
48:.
762:(
739:P
736:M
722:(
695:P
692:M
659:(
641:P
638:M
618:(
601:☭
598:☺
532:(
516:☭
513:☺
482:(
461:(
426:/
367:(
346:(
324:(
302:/
249:(
230:·
225:(
168:)
158:(
156:)
118:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.