Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad

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. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad

Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:N.   Cs32en Talk to me  12:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are the references not indications of notability per WP:N? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GOOGLEHITS, even GBOOKSHITS, is not a good argument. A great number of the hits are only trivial mentions of the book. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two sources in the article, and these do not report on the book in a substantial way. The information is not sufficient to write an an article that would be verifiably unbiased.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the other sources found by Google Books? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the third page of the sources that you have linked to, there is a text that may discuss the book in some length. The author calls the book "comprehensive" and "important", while another source says the author "forced his conclusions" in a "high-handed manner". If someone can access these sources, then we may be able to write a good, or at least, an unbiased article about the book. Right now, there is a possibility that we would present a book as uncontroversial, although there are indications that it's is actually disputed. I have looked at the sources that are accessible through the link at the top of this page. Most only mention the book in an unsubstantial way only, sometimes only as a reference. The two sources that do offer some details are insufficient to write an an article that would be verifiably unbiased. I say this with the caveat that Google books does not show the entire text of most of these books.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you've cited is inadmissible for the purpose of attesting notability; it's edited by a guy who translated Lammens's book into English, so it's not independent as there is an obvious financial motive for promoting the book to English speakers. I can't tell how extensive the coverage is in the second, since it's snippet. Also, from what I can see of the first in snippet view, it also contains entire chapters that are just reprints of Lammens's writings, meaning that the coverage you cite may be in the nature of an introduction, rather than an independent commentary, meaning that the source is even less admissible. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; in spite of the large number of GOOGLEHITS cited by Phil Bridger, the book lacks significant coverage that would attest notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil Bridger's argument. We're talking about a century-old non-English language scholarly work, mentioned in hundreds of texts and identified variously as a significant work and the most important work of a notable scholar. There also appear to be a fair number of GScholar hits. I have to say that Roscolese's argument concerning Ibn Warraq (the "first source" he criticizes) is singularly off-target; to argue that the notable editor's commentary in a scholarly anthology is intended as promotion for the editor's other work goes far beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion. Scholars and researchers write about what they believe to be important, and it's hardly surprising or inappropriate that content in one work might reinforce the content in another. It's not like a trade magazine touting the products of its advertisers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree with your point if Ibn Warraq were a scholar and Prometheus Books were a scholarly publisher, but neither of them quite meet those standards; the author's a polemicist and the publisher's of an anti-religious bent. And again, it's also just difficult-ranging-to-impossible to tell if the material in the first source is even a separate commentary on the book, or just an introduction to an excerpt from it which we know to be included. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is however the only source I saw which provides anything approaching significant coverage - are there any more that you've found? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 16 August 2011 (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.