Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Understanding Islam through Hadis

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. Sandstein 21:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Islam through Hadis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A book published by the author's non notable friend in USA, lacking third party significant RS coverage. Fails all the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Only has few mentions in primary or non reliable sources. Article created by a promotional WP:SPA whose other articles have since been deleted. --Walrus Ji (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We cannot allow WP pages on every book. The place for this is on book sale websites. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My google book search found several mentions of the book in other works (Mostly snippets are displayed so hard to fully evaluate) I found it listed on a few lists of banned books. Jeepday (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeepday, Unless the links you are talking about are WP:Significant Coverage, (in which case I would like to see the link here), those links with passing mention or citations don't contribute anything to the notability. Everything that gets a mention online or somewhere, isn't fit for an article. WP:BOOKCRIT bar, as far as I understand is much higher. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Snippets are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian & Walrus Ji I am using 'Snippet' to describe what is shown by Google due to Copyright issues, Google can not show the entire content of copyrighted works, therefore I can't provide details on the length of coverage in those copyrighted works that talk about the subject. But in my estimation, based what I do see, I believe that the subject of the article is notable. If your research gives you a different view on notability, I encourage you to post your findings. Jeepday (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing pro-forma on standard lists of "ten books banned in India" or "11 controversial books" are not substantial coverage; at best, it's WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd be willing to go along with userfy this page so that more research can be done and the page can be fixed outside of normal editing, since at this moment, WP:TNT might apply. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence of notability. Mentions do not constitute significant coverage, and a number of those mentions are in books by the same author; those contribute nothing, as they are not intellectually independent. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 13 January 2021 (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.