Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America

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. Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article and disagrees with the nominator's claims that all sources are unfit to demonstrate notability sufficient for inclusion. Problems with blog sources can and should be dealt with editing. Consensus also favors renaming the article to Muslim Mafia (book) although the "(book)" is not required for disambiguation purposes. Regards SoWhy 10:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Mafia

Muslim Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This book, published last month by WorldNetDaily, does not meet this minimum notability requirement for books:

• The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

At the time of this nomination, the article's claims rely upon:

• a blog,[1]
• a blog that merely reprints the book's foreword authored by Sue Myrick,[2]
• a blog interview with Sue Myrick in which she promotes the book,[3]
• a blog about the actions of Sue Myrick that makes trivial mention of the book,[4]
• an opinion blog at Salon.com about the actions of Sue Myrick and the author's website that does not mention the book at all mentions the book to say that Myrick wrote the foreword,[5]
• a FOXnews.com article that debunks Sue Myrick's claims and makes trivial mention of the book,[6]
• a KansasCity.com article about a lawsuit concerning the author's website,[7]
• a FOXnews.com article about formal contact between the FBI and CAIR,[8]
• a blog's coverage of a promotional press conference held by Sue Myrick,[9]
• and Al Jazeera's coverage of that same press conference.[10]

Update: other sources presented:

• a duplicate of the Kansascity.com article,[11]
• an excerpt of C-SPAN's constant House coverage in which Keith Ellison responds to Myrick's press conference and makes trivial mention of the book,[12]
• a duplicate of Keith Ellison's response,[13]
• another duplicate of Keith Ellison's response,[14]
• an interview with CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper about Sue Myrick and the FBI which makes only trivial mention of the book (this video would contribute more to the Sue Myrick article),[15]
• a Rachel Maddow Show segment about Sue Myrick and CAIR which mentions the book only as far as to say that Myrick wrote the foreword and it was published by WorldNetDaily,[16]
• a Rachel Maddow Show interview with Suhail Khan about Sue Myrick which reiterates that Myrick wrote the foreword and it was published by WorldNetDaily,[17]
• a segment from Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (not a reliable source) about Sue Myrick's actions and CAIR.[18]
• a trivial mention in a Countdown with Keith Olbermann clip which mentions Sue Myrick, the name of the book and the author's name, and then wrongly attributes a comment which the author made in an interview last week[19] as though it had been printed in the book,[20]
• an interview with Sue Myrick which does not mention the book at all,[21]
• a trivial mention in an interview with Sue Myrick which only mentions the name of the book,[22]
• a blog,[23]
• a public-access television interview with Ibrahim Hooper,[24][25]
• an interview with the author, which cannot be used as an independent source for WP:N,[26]
• trivial mention of the name of the book and a quote from Myrick's foreword,[27]
• trivial mention of the book in an article about Myrick's actions and CAIR,[28]
• a letter from Sue Myrick,[29]
• another letter from Myrick,[30]
• another letter from Myrick, this one hosted at WorldNetDaily,[http://www.wnd.com/files/cairirsletter.PDF]
• trivial mention in a Politico.com article about the press conference,[31]
• a duplicate of the Politico.com article,[32]
• trivial mention in a blog's coverage of Tom Coburn,[33]
• Steven Emerson's blog covering the press conference,[34]
• Emerson's blog which mentions the name of the book,[35]
• more from Emerson's blog,[36]
• an opinion piece,[37]
• coverage in Messiah Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times, not a reliable source,[38]
• an article about Myrick's actions and the author's website,[39]
• a recommendation by anti-Muslim author Daniel Pipes,[40]
• a school newspaper,[41]
• a blog,[42]
• a blog,[43]
• an opinion piece,[44]
• a blog about Sue Myrick's actions which does not mention the book,[45]
• a link to anti-Muslim author Daniel Pipes' website,[46]
• the judge's opinion in the lawsuit about the author's website,[47]
• a blog about the lawsuit concerning Gaubatz's theft,[48]
• a Politico.com blog about the lawsuit,[49]
• mention of the book on Frontpage Magazine, not a reliable source,[50]
• an opinion piece on a blog,[51]
• and promotion of the book on an extremist anti-Muslim blog which hosts authors who are openly racist.[52]

Not one of those sources is simultaneously independent, a reliable source, and giving non-trivial coverage of the book. So there is not enough content from reliable sources to write a good article about this book. Very little of the reliably sourced content is even about this book, and there is too little third-party detail to write the article. The book does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. Delete. ~YellowFives 10:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete per nom. Very tenuous notability claims. I wasn't able to find anything else. Interested to see what the article creator has to say, perhaps he/she could bolster the article with offline resources. Hazir (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to Keep in light of significant improvements to the article. Hazir (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and move to Muslim Mafia(book). Some of YellowFive's "blogs" are not what we would consider blogs in the sense of SPS, but are columns in news outlets such as Salon.com, Talking Points Memo, the Washington Independent, and FrontPage magazine. While some of these sources are there to provide background, a sufficient number of them discuss the book itself. That media coverage, together with attention from four members of Congress as described in the article, show that this new and growing article meets both the general notability guidelines and notability for books by a wide berth. I would also like to mention that the article was created only last night, and feel its nomination may be be an outgrowth of a dispute the nom, a new editor, was involved in at Anwar al-Awlaki and Nidal Malik Hasan. I might add that critical coverage of books dealing with national security, conspiracies, and so forth is something we should strive for on Wikipedia as an information outlet, and regardless of how some editors feel about the subject or the publisher, should not be a reason to remove sourced content. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Except Salon.com does not mention the book at all. Talking Points Memo is a blog, as both our Wikipedia article and the Financial Times attest.[53] The Washington Independent might sound like a newspaper from the name of it, but it is just a blog founded in 2008 by the Center for Independent Media. In any case, the Washington Independent just reprints the book's foreword by Sue Myrick, and the notability guideline requires "sources that are independent of the book itself". FrontPage Magazine is not a magazine, and is not printed anywhere. It is a blog owned by David Horowitz that predates the popularity of the word "blog." In any case, FrontPage just has an interview with Sue Myrick, and again, we need third-party sources, not the words of an author. Show us which quote from the Myrick interview could be used as a reliable source about this book, and how much Wikipedia content on this book could be written from that quote.

I did see this new article mentioned from the Awlaki page, but that does not mean I'm not allowed to nominate it for deletion. The book does not meet the notability guidelines, so someone had to nominate it. ~YellowFives 16:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Those still aren't "blogs" in terms of WP policy. We allow material from groups such as the Center for Independent Media, just as we allow material published by the SPLC, ACLU, and CAIR. Many of those media outlets you're deeming as "blogs" have been brought up on RSN and deemed reliable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please quote from the policy that says blogs aren't "blogs" if you say they aren't blogs? Is every single person or event that the SPLC or ACLU mentions on their website automatically notable? Would you care to show which quote from the Myrick interview could be used as a reliable source about the book? The goal here is to write a good article. How much content toward such an article could Myrick's interview contribute? ~YellowFives 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V. The fifth footnote elaborates on the definition of "blog", and which kinds of blogs are not SPS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering what you meant by SPS. Well, WP:V says "Blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." But these blogs are not hosted by newspapers. Specifically what content could be sourced from these blogs for use in the article? ~YellowFives 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

While not all of those sources are distributed in printed format, they're still considered reliable secondary sources, they have editorial boards, and they're basically equivalent to newspapers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

None of them are printed anywhere, ever. FrontPage certainly is not considered a reliable source. And even WorldNetDaily has an editorial board, but that doesn't make them equivalent to a newspaper. FrontPage has an interview with the author of the foreword (not an independent source) and the Washington Independent reprints the foreword (not an independent source). We need third party analysis and commentary. Again, what content toward an article can be sourced from these reprints? ~YellowFives 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Washington Independent is a fleet-footed webpaper of politics and policy. We are the ink-stained wretches of the digital era. We aim for snap-crackle-pop reporting in our articles and blog posts – all working together to tell a bigger story. We provide thought-provoking commentary from insightful experts. We write to record scenes from the passing show, to stir things up and to keep the bastards honest. We seek to explore and define our nation and the context for our times."[54] That is equivalent to a newspaper? ~YellowFives 21:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Looks like it passes book notability guidelines by a mile. CNN, MSNBC, CBN News, and Al-Jazeera gave the book airtime. If these four sources are believed to be non-trivial, then suggest follow WP:BEFORE and then and only then take these 4 TV network articles to AFD. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you read the notability guideline. "Trivial" refers not to the size of CNN but the actual amount of coverage that they give to the book. I see no content in the article being sourced from these TV programs, so what exactly can they be used to say about the book? ~YellowFives 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep(I am original editor.) The source for this article is not a blog. For example these are the main sources:

1. Salon.com is hardly a blog, it easily meets WP:RS
2. Nor is Kansas City Star a blog, it easily meets WP:RS
3. Nor is News and Observer a blog, it easily meets WP:RS
4. Nor is Fox News a blog, it easily meets WP:RS

Moreover, nominator did not try to discuss article per wikipedia WP:BEFORE guidelines. Nomination reasoning paints a false picture by claiming liberal sources (included for balance) are blogs. Nomination simply seems to want to delete article and create a WP:POV on wikipedia that lacks mention of the main reason why 4 U.S. congressmen (Sue Myrick (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), John Shadegg (R-AZ), and Paul Broun ) held a press conference in which they claim that CAIR is creating a bad name for Muslim interns on Capital Hill. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One may quibble about whether Glenn Greenwald's opinion blog on Salon.com is a reliable source (I did not claim that all of Salon.com is a blog, but Greenwald's opinion blog is). But it doesn't matter for this article, because Greenwald does not mention the book. Not one word about it. I did not claim that the Kansas City Star is a blog. But the Kansas City Star's article is not about this book. It is about a lawsuit concerning the author's website. Where have you cited the News and Observer in the article? And I did not claim that Fox News is a blog (and I must wonder why you offered all these strawmen), but Fox's articles are about Sue Myrick and CAIR, not about this book.

Thank you for assuming bad faith about my intentions, but I have no problem with mention of this press conference on the articles of Sue Myrick, Trent Franks, John Shadegg, and Paul Broun. It's a fact that they held this press conference, and their articles can mention it. But that doesn't make the press conference itself inherently notable for its own separate article on Wikipedia, even if it's disguised as an article about an equally non-notable book. POV has nothing to do with a book's notability, but Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be created just to promote The Truth. You may think the press conference was important, but that's not the same as notability. ~YellowFives 16:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Wikihounding and bad faith accusation!!!Trivially claiming that editors are assuming bad faith about your intentions twists the WP:AGF guidelines, rendering them much weaker for cases where such bad faith actually exists. Strongly recommend that you don't do it again. If you do twist WP:AGF like this against me again, I will take it as a case of WP:wikihounding. Thanks in advance. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Nomination simply seems to want to ... create a WP:POV on wikipedia" certainly sounds like an accusation of bad faith to me. You could clarify what you meant by that instead of accusing me of "Wikihounding" you. ~YellowFives 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This "quote" cuts up the original statement as well as takes it out of context. Note the use of nomination instead of nominator among other things. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not a serious response. Including what was left out, "Nomination simply seems to want to delete article and create a WP:POV on wikipedia", does not make your statement any less of an obvious accusation of bad faith against me. "Nominations" do not "want" anything. Only editors "want" things. So you obviously were talking about me. Now, why don't you clarify what you meant instead of just complaining that I supposedly took you out of context. ~YellowFives 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty bizarre assertion that this article about a book is really camouflage for an article about a press conference. I looked at the article, and it seemed to be about a book to me. As far as Salon columns being "blogs", they aren't, they are published by Salon.com and subject to Salon's editorial board; the debate over newspaper columns being "blogs" has been settled long ago on WP. As far as whether the Salon piece counts towards background information on the author rather than notability of the book, it doesn't matter because there are already multiple independent RS's that discuss the book. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At this time, a third of the article is devoted to Myrick's conference and a third of the article is devoted to the author's website. Glenn Greenwald's opinion blog is subject to Salon's editorial board? Are you sure about that? It's explicitly an opinion piece. But are you in agreement that the Salon piece does not contribute to notability of the book? ~YellowFives 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's all centering around the book. Of course what columnists write is subject to the newspaper's editorial policy. If they weren't, there would be a disclaimer similar to those seen on reader comment pages. Yes, it is OK to cite opinion pieces. But after looking at the Salon article myself, it appears the author identifies the book as the source of the Congressional inquiry, and identifying something as an actor in the situation being described is not a trivial mention. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see the part at the bottom of the page where you have to click to see more of the blog entry. Greenwald does mention the book eventually, in the twelfth paragraph. He says that Myrick wrote the foreword, and then he immediately goes on to attack the author Dave Gaubatz's website and his earlier claims of finding Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Greenwald makes absolutely no critical analysis of the book itself.

You aren't accurately portraying what WP:N says about trivial mentions. The triviality does not refer to the importance of the claim. For instance, Gaubatz's claim that he found Saddam's WMDs, and the Bush administration conspired to cover up his finding, would be a very important claim, especially if he had any evidence for it whatsoever. But if a source just mentions this claim and dismisses it out of hand, without significant critical discussion, then the mention of that very important claim is a trivial mention. That is the case with Greenwald's mention of this book. He says it was written by Gaubatz and the foreword was written by Myrick. This is a trivial mention, as Greenwald tells us nothing more than the book jacket already did. ~YellowFives 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I know triviality doesn't refer to the ordinariness/extraordinariness of the Gaubatz claim. But it can refer to the significance the Salon writer attached to it. The Salon article is basically about a recent hubbub in Congress. A few paragraphs down the author basically states the hubbub was all started by that book. That's not a trivial statement about the book, that's a pretty strong statement. A nontrivial mention doesn't require a specific word count. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Triviality explicitly does not have anything to do with the significance that the writer attaches to the topic (which is in this case no significance at all, as evidenced by the complete lack of discussion of the book, and the outright dismissal of it with no further discussion). Look at WP:GNG: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Triviality is contrasted to detail about the subject, in this case the book. But the Salon article has no detail at all concerning the book. It says that Myrick wrote the foreword, and Gaubatz wrote the book, nothing more. This is the most extreme example of triviality: "The subject of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Triviality in the context of WP:N always refers to the amount of detail in the coverage. Please quote something from Greenwald's blog that can be used to write a detailed article about this book. ~YellowFives 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - per points quite articulately made, and discussed with impressive patience, by Squidfryerchef and Firefly.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment and question - Please don't get bogged down in discussions of other editors and WP:BEFORE, can we concentrate on the issues? My question is exactly is the content of any of these sources actually discussing the book as opposed to the issues that are the subject of the book. And what proportion of the airtime of the relevant broadcasts discuss the book itself? Which, if any, of the sources are just repeats of other sources? Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the wp:before questions are certainly fair questions, actually. As is your question. If you take even a quick glance at the articles out there as I just did, you will see that the Washington Times column and the Denver Post op piece by the former Congressman contain significant treatment of the book. Those by themselves satisfy criterion 1. I urge the nom to withdraw his nomination, or if he does not I hope someone snows this to avoid waste of everyones' time.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." I see no critical commentary, just a use of material of the book to discuss, one might even say bash, CAIR, etc. I don't think the Washington Times qualifies in any case under footnote 2 ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable " Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1. This book Muslim Mafia has been the source of four U.S. congressmen's (five if we includeTom Tancredo) public claims that CAIR has ties to Muslim extremists. This is a specific, testable claim. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. The editorial columns found in the Washington Times and the The Denver Post are unique because they are written by two notable figures: Bill Gertz and Tom Tancredo respectively. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Each incident of coverage about CAIR prompted by the book is a unique news event. CNN, CSPAN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBN, and Al-Jazeera. That all six networks mention the book is what is noteworthy.--Firefly322 (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I gather you found nothing to meet the guideline "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary."? Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've sought to reflect critical commentary coverage. Most of it is in the below collapsed green bar (materially temporarily deleted from the article, but for your consideration nevertheless).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:BOOK is a general (mostly historical) guideline. It cannot be expected to anticipate unique instances of notability such as the circumstances surrounding this book. Nor should it be applied in a procrustean manner.--Firefly322 (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Moreover, these unique circumstances surrounding Muslim Mafia certainly allows this "article to grow past a simple plot summary". --Firefly322 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep conflating subjective importance with notability, Firefly. The notability guideline requires substantial non-trivial coverage of the book because that is the only way a verifiable article about the book can ever be written. You can insist that we should pretend the guideline does not apply, but that doesn't get you any closer to fulfilling the purpose of the guideline, which is to write a good article about this book, not about a press conference, not about Sue Myrick, and not about CAIR. ~YellowFives 13:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, not even from Tom Tancredo. There's plenty of media coverage of CAIR here, but they were already a notable organization which got regular media coverage like the ACLU does. And from all that media coverage of CAIR, the only thing you can say about the book is "it has been the source of four U.S. congressmen's public claims that CAIR has ties to Muslim extremists." How does that single sentence make a good article about the book? Where is the critical commentary on the book that can be included in the article? ~YellowFives 13:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment "Notability guideline requires": Stating that a guideline requires anything sounds insane to me. Care to rethink this?--Firefly322 (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The notability guideline requires certain things to fulfill the purpose of the guideline. That does assume people agree that notability is worth having. If you would like to argue that this particular article should not be required to demonstrate notability, you can try to make that argument. It would not be a violation of policy, but it would probably be unpersuasive to AFD readers. ~YellowFives 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. this and this two independent, reliable, third party sources that are incorporated into the article are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The KansasCity.com article is not about the book but rather the author's website, and Messiah Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times is not a reliable source. Neither is incorporated into the article to provide any substantive content except "you should read this book!" Could you show a quote from the KansasCity.com article that could be used to source substantive article content about this book? (You're the first keep voter who isn't involved at the Anwar al-Awlaki article, though, so that's refreshing.) ~YellowFives 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Response. There are times when a 'book' is more notable than its contents; this notability is often caused by controversy. The Satanic Verses is a classic example of this and IMO this book falls into that category. So in this case I beleive WP:GNG should be considered rather than WP:BK. In the KC article there is a federal judge referring to the book, that's notable to me. As for the Washington Times, over the past two years it has evolved into a very different paper than it was in the past and I'm comfortable with considering the article for proof of notability in this case. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Moon's remarks in September 2009: "Who is the president of the Washington Times? Who is the original ancestor? When we first made the newspaper in America, who was the beginning point? It was me. If we talk about Washington Times, we cannot say anything without Reverend Moon. You should not think that the Washington Times can move apart from Father. At any time, I can disband the Washington Times and make a similar newspaper in China or Russia. ... In America, through homosexuality and lesbianism people’s bodies are messed up. Will God want to touch any part of those bodies? ... I worry whether to keep the Washington Times alive. The Washington Times has to take responsibility for people going to hell in America."[55]

The paper is now in the middle of a power struggle while Moon's three sons fight each other for control. Three executives have been fired in the last week, armed guards separate staffers from the management, and the editor has stopped coming to work.[56] This is not an atmosphere that fosters journalistic integrity.

As for this book, the judge in the KansasCity.com article appears to mention that the book was written by Gaubatz, and that is all he says about the book. That is the definition of a trivial mention which does not count to WP:N. The Satanic Verses received plenty of literary criticism unrelated to the threats against Rushdie, the book won the Whitbread Award and was a finalist for the Booker Prize. So that book was notable already without controversy, and the comparison does not apply. ~YellowFives 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like our opinions differ; I doubt either of us will change the other's mind. Your points are valid as I believe are mine. The only thing I want to point out is that Rushdie's book received no attention or accolades until after the controversy. J04n(talk page) 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Rushdie was already a world-renowned author by the time The Satanic Verses was published, and everything he wrote received attention because he was Salman Rushdie. Midnight's Children had already won the Booker Prize in 1981, and Shame won the Prix du Meilleur Livre Étranger in 1984. The Satanic Verses was released on 26 September 1988, it won the Whitbread Prize on 8 November 1988, and the Ayatollah issued his fatwa on 14 February 1989. Your points are not valid because you do not address the question of substantial/trivial coverage that WP:N centers upon. Which content from the KansasCity.com article could source substantive article content about this book? ~YellowFives 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll strike that statement then, you are obviously more expert in this area than me. J04n(talk page) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This GNews search seems to turn up more RS mentions than those mentioned above. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Here's one: Court House News article. It's an article written for attornies. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice that article is not about the book, but about the lawsuit concerning Gaubatz's theft. ~YellowFives 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's not about the book, odd then isn't it that they illustrate the article w/a picture of the book's cover. Or perhaps that's beacause the litigation is about steps taken as they researched the book.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it's because they didn't have a photograph of Gaubatz stealing documents from CAIR. If you think that courthousenews contains significant coverage of this book then could you please provide a quote from it that could be used to source substantive article content about this book? ~YellowFives 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Mostly non-notable book, now being used as a BLP-coatrack by an editor who WP:OWNS the article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Who WP:OWNS the article? And what have they done to make you say that? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator seems to be asserting that the article meets the GNG, but not the SNG WP:BOOK. An extensive RfC a year ago rejected the notion that an SNG-covered article must meet BOTH the SNG and GNG: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise#Proposal B.5: SNGs override GNG Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:BOOK, and I have not suggested differently. There is no significant coverage of the book in reliable sources that are independent. The claim that this book is important anyway, even though it does not meet WP:N, does not help us write a substantive article. ~YellowFives 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jclemens. That's how I interpeted the discussion so far. I think the majority of editors can agree that the book because of the high number of notable people either publically endorsing or publically denouncing the book, it meets WP:GNG. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How could you have completely misunderstood me when I made several comments mentioning only WP:N and WP:GNG with no reference to WP:BOOK? Without any doubt, I have been saying the book does not meet either the general notability guideline or the special guideline for books.

Notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter how many people make trivial mention of the book, whether to endorse it or dismiss it. What matters is whether they give significant coverage to it, making substantive statements that can be used to source the article. So for example when Rachel Maddow mentioned the name of the book, mentioned that Sue Myrick wrote the forword, mentioned that WorldNetDaily published it, and nothing more, that was the definition of a trivial mention. And if Joe Freshman-Journalist would write a substantive article about the book in a reliable source, that relatively unknown author would have contributed significant coverage where Rachel did not. It doesn't matter who's talking. It matters what they're saying.

And if you think I'm wrong about this, please point me to the part of WP:N where it says that trivial mentions by important people don't count as trivial mentions. ~YellowFives 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I spent the past hour and a half reading up on all the circumstances surrounding this subject, getting up to speed on all the arguments here, and reviewing the existing policies regarding books, notability, and sourcing. I waffled between keep and delete approximately 3 times, but looking back on the body of argument, I noticed that the book is only mentioned in news stories about other barely-notable activities of the author (who, at this time, is not notable himself). The way I see it, the book is close to qualifying as notable but only time will tell if it actually becomes so. For now, I recommend deletion.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

11 refs and related texted temporarily removed from article, but for consideration as indicia of notability

Comment. This has been wheeling, as 1) editor A says we need more x (e.g., sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary); 2) editor B (e.g., me) seeks to address that by putting it in the article; 3) editor C cries "coatrack"; 4) editor D (e.g., Firefly, well intentioned and seeking to satisfy editor C, deletes the material that addresses editor A's comment). Since we can't very well discuss matters without people seeing the refs that were deleted, so that they can consider them, I'll for the moment park the most recently deleted text and refs below: ...... ...Bill Gertz, writing in the November 12 edition of the Washington Times: "Federal investigators chasing e-mail and other communication links between Fort Hood shooting suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki should consult a new book that cites documents on the al Qaeda imam." ....Tom Tancredo (formerly R-CO), writing in the November 6 edition of the The Denver Post, noted that the book was already gaining attention as four Congressman have asked the House sergeant-at-arms to investigate allegations in the book of double agents having been placed inside Congress by CAIR, and opined that the book's: "allegations will be dismissed as alarmist by many, but critics will have to confront the book's extensive documentation. Its authors ... have national security backgrounds and solid reputations. The most controversial part of the book is the relationship between CAIR and the international Muslim Brotherhood... Our nation's news media often turn to CAIR for a "moderate Muslim response" to events of the day. Yet this book shows that the mask of moderation covers its real mission....if the authors ... are correct, we ... may well be growing and training our own brand of domestic terrorists who know how to destroy our nation from within." The New English Review reviewed the book on October 14, 2009, writing "It is an important assessment of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in America." Phyllis Chester, reviewing the book for Pajamas Media, called it "an important, perhaps even an explosive and sensational book". A review of the book by Investigative Project suggested that the book simply confirmed with examples what was already known, noting: "The book reinforces th[e] conclusion [about CAIR] with internal examples." The book, published three weeks prior to the Fort Hood shooting, contains one sentence that is especially distubing, given what happened three weeks later: "A senior Homeland Security official warns that Aulaqi—whom he describes as an "al-Qaida supporter"—is actively targeting U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures ecouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen." As it turns out, the sole suspect in the Fort Hood shooting, Nidal Malik Hasan, attended the the Dar al-Hijrah mosque when Anwar al-Awlaki was the imam there, and Hasan reportedly has deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings. Furthermore,intelligence agencies intercepted 10 to 20 emails over several months starting in December 2008 until early 2009 between Hasan and al-Awlaki. Soon after the attack, a posting on al-Awlaki's website praised Hasan for the shooting, and encouraged other Muslims serving in the military to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal," though the Los Angeles Times reported that the posting could not be confirmed immediately to have been authored by al-Awlaki. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and move to Muslim Mafia(book). This is clearly a case of attempted censorship to enforce a POV. It is ridiculous to mention that everybody from Fox-right to Maddow-left on MSNBC talks about the book, but asssert that it's not notable. Bachcell (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can't be making a reasonable argument about what constitutes trivial coverage and reliable sources. I must be trying to censor The Truth. That's the only explanation. Except that I've already said there's nothing wrong with mentioning this at the Sue Myrick article where it belongs.

Go ahead and watch the Rachel Maddow clips. She mentions the name of the book, the author of the foreword, and the publishers. That's a patently trivial mention. Please give us a quote from the Maddow clips that could be used to source substantive article content about this book. ~YellowFives 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and Move, per reasons given by Bachcell. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. This is an article about a book, as well as controversy surrounding the publication of the book and the production of the book. If we really wanted to be pedantic, we could call it "Muslim Mafia book controversy", and negate many of the arguments for deletion, though that would be kind of an awkward title. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What Squid said. Saying that the controversy about the book is irrelevant because it is not about the book per se, is like saying book reviews are irrelevant because they are about reviews ... not the book per se.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Analogy is flawed. A book review is about a book. It's only one step removed: review → book. But, for example, the courthousenews piece is about a lawsuit about a theft of documents that were removed from Gaubatz's website promoting the book, four steps removed: news → lawsuit → theft → website → book. You have the opportunity to show that I'm wrong, just by giving a quote from the courthousenews piece that could source a substantive article about this book. ~YellowFives 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to Epeefleche. I read what was under the collapse and it looks like there are some new sources that are critical book reviews that should be added back to the article. But I don't agree that the material about Ft. Hood belongs. The article should center around the book, the author, and the controversy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If sources address this book in context to the Ft. Hood shootings then there is no reason not to include that, NPOV insists on it actually. We go where the sources lead and the Ft. Hood shooting is a huge story that was magnified so close to US Veteran's Day holiday. -- Banjeboi 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, Seems there are plenty of sources already and more coming. I found this review pretty quick. And here's a few more even after removing the dreck. So book meets GNG and sourcing is certainly available. -- Banjeboi 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a review. It is the foreword of the book, the beginning of the book itself. The book can not be used as a source for its own notability. This "source" was mentioned at the very beginning of this AFD. It is "sources" like this that are being used to confuse people and give a false veneer of notability to a non-notable book. ~YellowFives 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad on the forward but there certainly does seem to be plenty of sources that are reliable by our standards.

• Muslim Mafia: an important investigative book on the Muslim Brotherhood in America New English Review, 14 October 2009.
• Judge: Controversial 'Muslim Mafia' used stolen papers: 'Muslim Mafia' author, championed by Rep. Myrick, ordered to strip questioned documents from Web site. Charlotte Observer, Nov. 10, 2009.
• CAIR sues "Muslim Mafia" authors Politico.com, November 02, 2009.
• The threat of the "Muslim Mafia" (opinion piece) Denver Post, 11/06/2009.
• GOP Lawmakers Accuse Muslim Advocacy Group CAIR of Planting Spies on Capitol Hill Fox News, October 15, 2009.
• Author of Muslim Mafia, Endorsed By John Shadegg, Uses Fort Hood Tragedy to Rally "Backlash Against the Muslim Community" Phoenix New Times, 9 November 2009.
• Muslim Mafia: CAIR's Inner Workings Exposed Hawaii Free Press, October 15, 2009.
• House GOP seeks Muslim 'spy' probe Washington Times, October 15, 2009.
• Myrick sees plot in Muslim group Charlootte Observer, Oct 18, 2009.
• Congressional document[57] myrick.house.gov.

I don't have a whole lot of time right now so I'll respond to the first two. The "New English Review" is an extremist anti-Muslim blog which hosts authors who are openly racist and homophobic. Look on the left side of that page and you can see a list of what they are promoting and selling: "Recent Publications by New English Review Authors: ... Geert Wilders: Why I Am In America Fighting For Free Speech". Geert Wilders has called for the Koran to be banned, and he's been condemned by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, who certainly can not be accused of a pro-Muslim bias.[58] The New English Review can not be considered a reliable source.

The Charlotte Observer piece contains barely any information about the book. It says it was written by Gaubatz. It says the foreword was written by Myrick and she has been promoting it (obviously). What else does it say? Specifically what content from that piece could be used to write a substantive article about this book? That's the same problem with so many of the sources I already listed at the top of the page. They don't really talk about the book at all. The Charlotte Observer talks extensively about a theft. That's fine, but it doesn't help write an article about this book (that's why WP:BOOK requires some critical commentary, because it's necessary to write a good article about any book). ~YellowFives 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree here. Frankly if sources that you or someone else thinks are wobbly then in each case it can be looked at to see what content tey are supporting and if they are even needed. WP:RSN can help sort out which sources can be used for what. In just a brief search it was apparent that Sean Hannity has been talking the book into interest so even if many/all of the sources are quite right-wing we simply report that. Tu sagain it becomes a clean-up rather than deletion issue. -- Banjeboi 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The book and its author are mentioned in the Congressional Record October 26, 2009. This really gives a lot of weight to this book meeting wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:GNG. Perhaps this can help curtail this discussion? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember this?

• an excerpt of C-SPAN's constant House coverage in which Keith Ellison responds to Myrick's press conference and makes trivial mention of the book,[59]

That was the video you already posted of Ellison's response to Myrick on the House floor. Now you present a written record of that video and you pretend it's a new and separate source.

What does Ellison say about the book? He mentions the name of the book, the name of the author, and the name of the foreword's author. Again, the same content we would get from reading the book cover, and the definition of a trivial mention. ~YellowFives 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that everything and everyone ever mentioned in the congressional record is WP:N-notable, are you? ~YellowFives 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Bad idea to twist the guideline meaning of "trivial mention" from random word conjunction into pointed coverage.
2. Per the WP:Notability guideline "trivial mention" would be this usage of "Muslim Mafia".
3. The appearance of the book in the Congressional Record is neither a random word conjunction nor a non-trivial instance

--Firefly322 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you do not understand what WP:N actually says, Firefly. I will quote it to assist you:

• Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.

See, triviality does not refer to "random word conjunction." In fact nothing like that is suggested anywhere in WP:N, or anywhere else but your imagination. So this is not even a trivial mention of "Muslim Mafia" because it is not a mention of the book at all. A trivial mention is something like mentioning the band Three Blind Mice without saying anything more about them, it is not simply saying the words "three blind mice" when not talking about the band. WP:BOOK explains what triviality means in the context of books. Here it is again to assist you:

• The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

Ellison mentions the name of the book, the name of the author, and the name of the foreword's author. That is literally the definition of a trivial mention. ~YellowFives 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what you think is so special about Ellison's speech being printed in the congressional record, when you already linked to a video of him speaking on the House floor. Did you think that he was going to give that speech yet it somehow wasn't going to be entered into the congressional record? Do you think that everything mentioned in the congressional record is notable to Wikipedia? ~YellowFives 20:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We're well beyond trivial mentions. In the article itself we already have the pieces by Steven Emerson, Bill Gertz, Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Dean Obeidallah; we also have these two videos with comments on the book by Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for CAIR --[60][61], and then there is the article in The Politico and perhaps the New English Review. And that's without even mentioning all of the coverage relating to the litigation relating to the book, and the endorsement by Congressmen (and pushback by one Congressman) spurred by the book. I think at this point, as most editors here have reflected, its beyond cavil that we have notable coverage. Though if you wish, I guess we can countenance continued wikilawyering a bit longer.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• keep Meets WP:N. Whether the book is accurate or whether the book is idiotic and hateful simply doesn't matter. Meets notability at this point. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This article meets the three core content policies and WP:BK.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and well-sourced. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, William. I guess this is now officially a Who's Who of the Fort Hood shooting. Is it appropriate for you to follow me here from my contributions? ~YellowFives 19:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not the editors. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I just asked if that was appropriate behavior. You know I haven't been able to read every rule here at Wikipedia yet. ~YellowFives 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is notable and filled with sources. PÆonU (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The 45 sources seem adequate to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Several are duplicates, and not one of them is simultaneously independent, a reliable source, and giving non-trivial coverage of the book. The article has been fluffed up impressively, but it's mostly air. ~YellowFives 04:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that view somewhat surprising. What about the views expressed by Steven Emerson, Bill Gertz, Congressman Tom Tancredo, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Chesler, Dean Obeidallah in The Huffington Post, the opinion piece in Dubai's Khaleej Times, and TPMMuckraker's coverage? Just to pick a handful. Note, btw, that certain papers may be suitable for reporting opinions (i.e., carrying articles with the opinions of others), even if they may not be suitable for facts (if there is evidence of failure to check facts). Also -- you say "several are duplicates". Which "several" are your referring to? Thanks. Finally, I would bring your attention that every one of the last eight nine ten eleven twelve [including the four below] editors has spoken up in favor of the notability of this article and keeping it. By withdrawing the AfD in the face of overwhelming lack of community support, you will save others time they may otherwise waste by participating in this AfD that you started.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Steven Emerson is writing opinions on his blog that no editor can challenge. He is not a reliable source. Bill Gertz is writing in the Washington Times, not a reliable source. Tom Tancredo is writing an opinion piece that does not give us much verifiable to say about the book. Daniel Pipes is Daniel Pipes, and is not a reliable source. Phyllis Chesler is writing at a notoriously unreliable blog. Dean Obeidallah is writing at a notoriously unreliable blog. The Khaleej Times is an opinion piece and does not give us much verifiable to say about the book. TPMMuckraker covers Myrick's actions, not the book. The duplicates are listed above. Thanks. ~YellowFives 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowFives, please don't keep repeating your arguments to every editor who weighs in. AFD is not a chatroom. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yellow, its disruptive to seek to mislead editors. I think you know that opinion pieces by notable people are excellent indicia of notabilty. Your assertions that they are not, because for example of your personal view that editor x "hates Muslims" (which, I would point out, is an out-and-out BLP violation, which I am shocked you would engage in, as it is forbidden on Wikipedia), for example, is somewhat short of a credible argument. Furthermore, you fail to show any evidence that the sources in question cannot be used, even where you do not attack the notable writer for their feelings about Muslims, becaue their opinion pieces are written in what you view as sources not reliable for fact-checking -- certainly you are not suggesting that these sources are changing the words of the individuals who submitted their opinion pieces to them. This level of dogged less than forthright skewed tenditious editing is generally views as less than helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't presume to tell me how or with whom to communicate, Squidfryerchef. The editor above commented shortly before I addressed the rest of the "45 sources," so I called attention to that update. ~YellowFives 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect back to Muslim Mafia (book) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles. Notable and well-sourced. Location (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I think, judging from the list of sources at the front of this nomination, it's entirely possible the nominator doesn't understand WP:RS. Reliable sources don't need to be impartial. You needn't agree with them. They merely need to have a decent editorial process and some reputation for fact-checking. MSNBC, Politico, Wash Times, Huffington Post (with care taken around their editorial columns), National Review, Frontpage Magazine, etc., all qualify. I wouldn't have thought a book like this would've engendered this level of controversy, but to say it's notable is a dramatic understatement. Ray^Talk 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator's list of sources makes the argument. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep--Mbz1 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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.