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. And trim Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Bibliography of books critical of Islam

Bibliography of books critical of Islam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Wikpedia is not an indiscriminate list of things. Some of these books are notable and have their own articles. Most of them are not. There is no criteria to determine what should be on the list. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Support deletion on the grounds stated above. benjamil ^talk/ _edits 18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep but remove all items that do not have a wikipedia article. -- Bduke ( talk) 05:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this list is aggressive towards a particular civilization. The revealer ^talk 13:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, that's not really relevant and not why I nominated it. ... discospinster _talk 15:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment, "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" from WP:LISTN, also nominator states "There is no criteria to determine what should be on the list." and yet the lead sentence states "This is a bibliography of literature treating the topic of criticism of Islam, ...". Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: the entirety of the sentence you quoted is "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." I believe that is more relevant to topics like List of mayors of Yerevan or something like that. Mayors of Yerevan are notable, even if each individual mayor does not have a Wikipedia article, and there is a clear scope. Lists of books about (whatever topic) could go on forever and include pretty much anything that anybody writes. If there is no limitation to, e.g., books that already have articles, then it is an indiscriminate list. The same function (of grouping articles of books critical of (whatever)) could be achieved with a category. ... discospinster _talk 15:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Criticism of Islam is a real thing. Nothing should be on the list unless the writer or the book have their own Wikipedia article though. Rename it List of books critical of Islam. Dream Focus 18:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • What do you plan to do to books by authors who are Counterjihad-linked, far-right or unreliable? Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Well, one could answer that 5 (five) books by Counterjihad-linked authors are listed in Criticism of Islam#Further reading. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 17:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • What do you plan to do to books which are not about islam but about Eurabia, such Det mørke nettet and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis? Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep, rename and cleanup as suggested by User:Dream Focus. This is an important list that should not turn into an indiscrimate list. gidonb ( talk) 22:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: The page was titled Bibliography of Eurabia before being hijacked in March 2015‎. Now it is an awfull mix of reliable and unreliable sources, sources about islam and sources about the Eurabia conspiracy theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 09:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Visite fortuitement prolongée, User:Dream Focus had an awesome cleanup proposal! gidonb ( talk) 17:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I fail to see how Dream Focus's proposal answer to my comment. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC) but I will look at it and ask a few questions. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 17:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

This solution, as I see it, rids the books that are truly marginal. It does not dump books that individual contributors happen to dislike, be the arguments compelling as they may. There's no end to the back and forth in the latter case. To keep contentious articles managable we need simple rules that do the job. gidonb ( talk) 13:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. and trim a little. There is no need to limit it to those with a separate encyclopedia article. A list is , in fact, a good substitute for such separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 26 December 2019 (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.