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 no consensus. W.marsh 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights in Islam (book)[edit]

Although written by a notable author and dealing with a notable subject, I am afraid the book itself doesn't meet the notability criteria put forth by the Wikipedia community. Originally prodded, contested by Spacepotato. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The author seems to be very notable in the Islamic world. One of the guidelines for notability of books is that the author is so notable that his or her works may be deemed notable without meeting some of the other guidelines. I think that may hold true here, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that there have been non-trivial works related to this book outside the English-speaking world. If someone can show some examples of those, I'll consider a stronger opinion. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable book. Hosted by fringe radical group Jamaat-e-Islami (terrorist links, massacred 2000 Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan). No notable publishers. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, now I see a pattern by this Maududi character. Qadiani Problem (book). Incidentally, Qadiani is the same as Ahmadiyya. A genocidal mass-murderer/hater's books should only be notable if they are notably published or have historical significance like Mein Kampf. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we expressing a point of view by including or excluding an authors works based on his or her political/societal beliefs and actions? Leebo⁸⁶ 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. However... the book still isn't notable. :O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the author is notable enough to have his own article, I don't see why an article about one of his books (however minor) should be deleted. --Lee Vonce 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/delete author's notability doesn't mean that every book has to have its own article Madmedea 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author writing about a notable topic. The article needs editing, though, so let's give someone the chance to edit it. Caliwiki123 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't get it. How does the author's notability and the subject's notability demonstrate the notability of the book itself? If, say, Leni Björklund would suddenly publish a book about a notable subject such as, say, Hyacinthaceae, would that warrant it's own article? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the part of the notability guidelines I referred to before, the notability of the author:

The book's author is so historically significant that his or her works may be considered notable, even in the absense of secondary sources.

It's not a random subject, like you are implying in your example of a politician writing a non-notable botany book. It's a notable Islamic author writing a book about Islam. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, granted. But, that still really doesn't justify the existence of this article: first off, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi is not all too "historically significant", and secondly, even if he was, his works may be considered notable. I think not. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If his historical significance is going to be at the center of this aspect of the discussion, it's best not to cast it aside with a single statement as fact. His article implies that he is historically significant in the Islamic world. If that's not the case, then I would agree with you, but that should be the focus of the discussion then. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep on the basis of "Non-notable book. Hosted by fringe radical group Jamaat-e-Islami (terrorist links, massacred 2000" being used as an argument against keep. WP is not censored, and does include material about radical fringe groups of any notability, and notable books their adherents may write. It may be that some of the opposition is POV.DGG 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment suggesting keep on the basis that a delete argument is a WP:POV WP:POINT, isn't that in itself a WP:POINT? Please ignore the statements by Rumpelstiltskin223 and re-evaluate your opinion with regards to the other arguments. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He may have worded it in a way that could be construed as trying to make a point, but the core statement is not disruptive. The idea is that reasoning, though applied to a delete vote, is actually a better keep rationale. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah. Although I understand your argument, I still disagree - that it's a book somehow "endorsed" by Jamaat-e-Islami doesn't make it notable, no more than a book on temperance publiced by IOGT-NTO would be notable because of it's publisher. The book has to stand for itself - notable author, notable subject, and etcetera does not really make the book notable. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand what you are saying. You are entitled to disagree with the guideline regarding notability. It's only a guideline, and should never be regarded as an actual rule. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as work of well-known author Maududi. Spacepotato 20:49, 27 January 2007 (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.