Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom

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. Doesn't appear to pass notability guidelines, or possess any reliable sources. BLACKKITE 09:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet of Doom

Self-published book that fails every criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (books). I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself - it's mentioned but only in passing in a Business Week article of April 28, 2003 and an Arab News article of August 15, 2004. It's also mentioned in a handful of thoroughly unreliable sources such as WorldNetDaily, but obviously we can't use those because they don't comply with our requirement to use reliable, verifiable sources. It certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author Craig Winn cannot be described as historically significant in any way. Its self-published status also counts against it; as Wikipedia:Notability (books) states, "it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability." I realise that some editors may like the book's political thesis but please confine comments to whether or not the book meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books).

To clarify a frequently raised issue, it's not enough for a book to be mentioned only in passing (that's why Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks of non-trivial references). To quote: "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source: "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable."

One other clarification: deletion discussions aren't votes and their outcome is determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. Unsubstantiated assertions aren't useful in helping to determine a course of action. Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think the reaction and coverage in the news and the representation of popular culture is enough for me to feel that it should be kept barely.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some examples of "reaction and coverage in the news"? As I said, I looked but could only find a handful of trivial and unreliable mentions of it in media sources. We need hard evidence if the article's going to be kept. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. I hate the look of the book's political thesis, but I think it may be possible that this is an exception to the vanity publishing rule. I can imagine the rare case of a self-published book which is so inflammatory that it attracts widspread media attention, and this might be one. I'm not saying it's notable (else I'd be saying Keep), just that I think there may be sources out there. I will go and look. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've scanned the first 200 Google hits and found only two that are not Amazon, blogs, evangelical church websites or islamic defender websites. One is an item from Business Week ridiculing the forthcoming publication of the book. The other is a list of guests to the Mike Gallagher radio show. I don't know either source, but the latter does appear to have some high profile guests elsewhere on his guest list. Nevertheless on balance I'd say I expected to find more from the authoritative media, but didn't, so now feel notability will not be established.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very extent of the controversy is testimony to the notability. Wenili3a (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined solely by the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Could you explain how the book meets those criteria? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot see how this meets any of the listed criteria. The Business Week link noted above comes somewhat close, but it is one blurb in a much larger column. Even that blurb is focused on the author and only tangentially mentions the book in the context of being just the latest in a string of antics, noting how poorly it was received. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources to indicate this passes WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There have been edit wars over this page since the day it was created but it honestly never occurred to me until now that the entire page should just be pulled. Craig Winn is clearly noteworthy, and his former company ValueAmerica probably is, but his self-published books are not. It seems sufficient to mention them on his own page. Uucp (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not enough here for a good article now, and there probably never will be. The lack of reliable sources indicates that this book is not at all notable outside of the extremist fringe. *** Crotalus *** 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination is thorough, and correctly highlights the standard of sourcing required. I agree that the sources raised in the nom and by others is insufficient to establish notability. ITAQALLAH 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant notability. DGG (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book is subject of a number of controveries and is notable as a book critical of Islam. It has been subject of a debate on free speech and the right to criticize Islam. Calling this book self published is misleading, the book was published and distributed in bookstores and online book distributors. It just so happens that the company that published the book is a subsidiarry of a larger company owned by Winn.We as wikipedia editors should spend more time developing material and less deleting material, the amount of lost intellectual contributions to Wikipedia because of all the deletions is huge.--CltFn (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the only source you've cited in the article to support the assertion about a "controversy" is a single individual's personal blog. To quote WP:V, articles relating to questionable sources such as blogs "should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." And as WP:V goes on to say, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If the information has been reported by a mainstream source, it's potentially usable, but not if it comes solely from a personal blog. This is a perfect illustration of the issue that I raised - the lack of non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no reliable sources to verify notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:21, 15 January 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.