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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Dhimmitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This work has no clear claim to notability. There's one review, as basically the lone source (saying the book is tendentious polemic), but that is not enough to pass muster per WP:NBOOK, which, in its most basic form, demands at least two, non-trivial reviews. That leaves us with a single source and no notability. Delete. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep? There are five reviews listed in the article at present. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the nomination rationale is incorrect. There are five full length reviews listed in the further reading section. What PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep under SK3: Clearly enough reviews to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to those already in the article, there's also reviews in Mediterranean Politics ([1]), Digest of Middle East Studies ([2]) and Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte [de] ([3]). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MP link doesn't go anywhere if you're not logged in, but the DOMES review seems viable. I guess the German one counts too, if not very useful unless someone plans to translate. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ??? It's still a review that counts for notability. Just because you can't access the link doesn't mean it's not countable for notability. Other languages sources are perfectly fine. What?? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iskandar323: Sorry about the MP one, please check if this T&F link works through TWL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13629390410001679982 ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That doi appears to be producing a different review. May be a number off. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have to download the PDF and scroll to the fifth page of the PDF. The preview only shows the first apge. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iskandar323 It isn't, T&F journals are just weird and throw all their book reviews in an issue under one pdf and DOI. The review is from pages 138-139 and is 800 words long. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly didn't check the further reading, because the further reading isn't meant to be for core sources that should be used as references. That seems to yield one more good review. Then a link that just hangs, MEQ which is unreliable, something that looks like a blog, and a dead link to a student newspaper. Still not impressive, although one could use the JSTOR source to expand the article to say that the book is not only tendentious polemic, but also "remarkably ignorant". And I suppose that is a source stating that the suggest is "remarkable" in its ignorance, so there's that. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading is often used for putting sources that are establishing notability but have not been incorporated into the page yet. Stubs aren't against the rules. Other than MEQ all the further reading reviews are fine. The link doesn't matter with academic journals, it's extremely easy to identify and verify that a review from these publications exists, which is what counts for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to yield one more good review. Is that not enough for NBOOK, which only requires two reviews? Then there's the other three reviews I mentioned, which you can't just wave away since they are in a different language (WP:RSUE) or are inaccessible to you (WP:PAYWALL). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC) strike point about inaccessibility. Sorry, I forgot that I was accessing it from my library's Wifi, which let me access it even without a login. I wasn't aware that accessing it from elsewhere would show next to no info about the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess so. Can't really maintain my initial premise. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. But an argument can be made to merge this back with Bat Ye'or. Much of how scholars view this book has to do with how scholars view Ye'or's various theses on Islam in general.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:45, 18 September 2024 (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.