Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book)

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 of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 12:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book)[edit]

Delete, the article is created by User:Striver and is about a book. The article does not establish the books notablity and unless its notablity is established I vote for it to be deleted. Jersey Devil 13:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is easly read by more than 5 000, and it is often quoted in Shi'a-Sunni arguements and also in books such as Restatement of History of Islam. The writer is also notable.--Striver 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and expand. A Google search yields over 10,000 hits and there's 29 used copies of this book for sale on Amazon. Seems notable enough for wikipedia. --BWD^(talk) 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note, however, that there are only 188 ghits for +"Betty Kelen" +"Muhammad: The Messenger of God" [1]. "Muhammad the messenger of god" is a very common phrase, and is a title that is not limited to Kelen's book. Esquizombi 20:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BWD. Bayberrylane 16:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non-trivial book by notable author. Monicasdude 16:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable book. Stop nominating every article that Striver makes without checking it first. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In need of expansion, but clear keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't seem difficult to establish notability! Dlyons493 Talk 18:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do i do if i want to "file a charge" of being stalked? I have never done that, could anyone help. What do i need to prove? --Striver 18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Betty Kelen. If there were actual content, I would vote merge, but there is not. Esquizombi 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that there is at least one precedent for merging a book stub into its author's stub (or deleting the book stub while leaving the author stub, or redirecting the book stub to the author's article) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McElwain, and I think that is appropriate here. Esquizombi 06:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And enough with nominating Striver's articles. Even if they're non-notable, you up and mentioned him in the nomination like him writing an article is a criteria for deletion. This is starting to get goofy. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's nothing there, and nothing that can't be dealt with in her article. ProhibitOnions 21:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And second Adrian's comments. Jersey Devil, you are in the neighborhood of wikistalking Striver with this series of AfD's. Georgewilliamherbert 02:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough to justify a stub. Now someone please be bold and expand the darn thing. 23skidoo 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all --Khoikhoi 08:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Betty Kelen as per Schizombie. 118 hits for author + title is very damning. --Mmx1 16:06, 13 March 2006 (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.