Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cracking the Quran Code (2nd 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking the Quran Code

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First AFD closed as no consensus, an I closed the subsequent DRV discussion as insufficient consensus to overturn that decision but that the article should be relisted. It appears that the first AFD was affected by meat-puppetry to some degree, and during the DRV, several editors provided well-reasoned arguments that the sources used in the article are insufficient to establish notability. In addition the book is self-published, and the little coverage it has gotten is ideologically motivated. The relisting is procedural, but I have entered my own opinion below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:N presumption that multiple sources implicates notability is a guideline, and I would say a rough guideline at that. This book is self-published and there is no evidence of it having any social or political impact. Interviews with the author and a few fairly local book reviews in local press are very common, and calling that sufficient gives a too broad inclusion standard for articles on books. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the admin closing the previous AfD as "no consensus", I agree with Sjakalle's mode of proceeding. I also agree with their reasoning above. Since the book seems to be covered only by two fringe-y sources that agree with (and seem to want to promote) the book's ideological bent, I doubt that we have enough source material that can be used to write a neutral, verifiable article about the book. Sandstein 11:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published book only taken note off by two websites in the same ideological camp as the author. Not in any libraries, not reviewed by any scholarly journals, the quality press or anyone else beyond a propaganda outlet for israel's settler movement and Choudry's personal website. Wikipedia is being used to elevate a fringe book and its argument, because it isn't getting anywhere on its own.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources. Oore (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Oore (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self published book, no substantial coverage in mainstream sources or acedemic sourcesThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm convinced by the comments of Bali ultimate in the DRV. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my arguments in the original AFD (which I'm going to try to add to the box at the top).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Copy/paste my comments from DRV): There is no evidence of this book having a notable presence/recognition in the field of Israel-Palestine books. The publisher not a neutral or mainstream company. Any facts, details from this book - especially the verses that are the basis of the claims made in this book - can be incorporated in Muslim Zionism, Biblical narratives and the Qur'an, Islam and Judaism and this book used as a source. But not a separate article for the book. Shiva (Visnu) 00:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL as self published source its not even remotely reliable for that, This guy does not even seem to be notable enough to have his opinion included any where The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable or mainstream in any way. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.