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
SpartazHumbug! 17:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)reply
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. ...discospinstertalk 17:32, 18 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. ...discospinstertalk 15:14, 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
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
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.
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
SpartazHumbug! 17:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)reply
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. ...discospinstertalk 17:32, 18 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. ...discospinstertalk 15:14, 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
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
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.