The result was keep. Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article and disagrees with the nominator's claims that all sources are unfit to demonstrate notability sufficient for inclusion. Problems with blog sources can and should be dealt with editing. Consensus also favors renaming the article to Muslim Mafia (book) although the "(book)" is not required for disambiguation purposes. Regards So Why 10:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
This book, published last month by WorldNetDaily, does not meet this minimum notability requirement for books:
At the time of this nomination, the article's claims rely upon:
Update: other sources presented:
Not one of those sources is simultaneously independent, a reliable source, and giving non-trivial coverage of the book. So there is not enough content from reliable sources to write a good article about this book. Very little of the reliably sourced content is even about this book, and there is too little third-party detail to write the article. The book does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. Delete. ~ YellowFives 10:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment and question - Please don't get bogged down in discussions of other editors and WP:BEFORE, can we concentrate on the issues? My question is exactly is the content of any of these sources actually discussing the book as opposed to the issues that are the subject of the book. And what proportion of the airtime of the relevant broadcasts discuss the book itself? Which, if any, of the sources are just repeats of other sources? Dougweller ( talk) 10:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment "Notability guideline requires": Stating that a guideline requires anything sounds insane to me. Care to rethink this?-- Firefly322 ( talk) 13:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
11 refs and related texted temporarily removed from article, but for consideration as indicia of notability
|
---|
Since we can't very well discuss matters without people seeing the refs that were deleted, so that they can consider them, I'll for the moment park the most recently deleted text and refs below: ... [1]... ... Bill Gertz, writing in the November 12 edition of the Washington Times: "Federal investigators chasing e-mail and other communication links between Fort Hood shooting suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki should consult a new book that cites documents on the al Qaeda imam." [2] .... Tom Tancredo (formerly R-CO), writing in the November 6 edition of the The Denver Post, noted that the book was already gaining attention as four Congressman have asked the House sergeant-at-arms to investigate allegations in the book of double agents having been placed inside Congress by CAIR, and opined that the book's:
The New English Review reviewed the book on October 14, 2009, writing "It is an important assessment of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in America." [4] Phyllis Chester, reviewing the book for Pajamas Media, called it "an important, perhaps even an explosive and sensational book". [5] A review of the book by Investigative Project suggested that the book simply confirmed with examples what was already known, noting: "The book reinforces th[e] conclusion [about CAIR] with internal examples." [6] The book, published three weeks prior to the Fort Hood shooting, contains one sentence that is especially distubing, given what happened three weeks later:
As it turns out, the sole suspect in the Fort Hood shooting, Nidal Malik Hasan, attended the the Dar al-Hijrah mosque when Anwar al-Awlaki was the imam there, and Hasan reportedly has deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings. [8] Furthermore,intelligence agencies intercepted 10 to 20 emails over several months starting in December 2008 until early 2009 between Hasan and al-Awlaki. [9] Soon after the attack, a posting on al-Awlaki's website praised Hasan for the shooting, and encouraged other Muslims serving in the military to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal," [10] though the Los Angeles Times reported that the posting could not be confirmed immediately to have been authored by al-Awlaki. [11]
-- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply |