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 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funding Evil

[edit]

A minor book written by someone with an extremist political agenda, for which no real sources are cited, and I'm not confident they exist. There are a few reviews and some discussion in articles on the author, but the book itself does not seem to me to be independently notable. I don't know whether this should be deleted or whether it should be smerged to Rachel Ehrenfeld. The minor controversy associated with the book is already covered there, so it is not clear what would be merged. Amazon sales rank is in the hundreds of thousands, so unlikely to make the NYT Bestseller list. The creator of the article is now banned, and the author of the book is also currently blocked for spamming her website in polemical terms. This leads me to suspect that an agenda is being promoted by the existence of this article. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a little more of the context about the controversy to Rachel Ehrenfeld, since it's covered better on this article (and has a source to boot). Other than that I'd have to mostly agree with Guy, that this doesn't appear very notable on its own. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to User:ChrisO on his work. Would still be nice to include a little more of this at Rachel Ehrenfeld. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to do that. I also did a Factiva search for info on Ehrenfeld herself but found so much (and some of it so weird) that I'm having some trouble digesting it all. (For instance, I learned that she attracted controversy in the 1980s when she argued that the Soviet Union was responsible for the US drug epidemic - flooding the US with hard drugs to bring down democracy. Trying to put that sort of thing into context a bit tricky...) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / ~~Merge~~ book is not notable in itself, but the the lawsuit and resultant "libel tourism" flap is quite notable. <eleland/talkedits> 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article stands on its own thanks to recent improvements by ChrisO <eleland/talkedits> 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found several reviews of the book itself, and numerous news articles about the litigation on the case (which was described by one source as "the most important First Amendment case for 50 years"). It clearly meets the first requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (books), that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." I've greatly expanded the article to reflect the material I found. In reply to Guy's comments on the agenda being pursued by the creator of the article, yes, he was clearly pursuing a line of Islamophobic POV-pushing which included promoting the "Barack Obama is a Muslim" meme and creating a walled garden of articles on anti-Islam books, several of which have been deleted due to a lack of notability. I've nominated a couple myself. This one, however, doesn't fall into that category (at least not now that it's been expanded). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; book that is subject of notable litigation. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is perfectly irrelevant whether the author is an extremist. —SlamDiego_←T 21:07, 23 March 2008 (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.