Talk:Because They Hate

Renewing the page

I have already provided content edit with references and external links but it is reverted and redirected to another article. What's wrong with my edit? — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

MusenInvincible, This book does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK. See this AfD discussion from 2008. Little seems to have changed since then-- therefore it does not seem to merit a stand-alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

see WP:BKCRIT. It is not enough to have reliable sources, an article must also be proven to be on a significant topic to merit a stand-alone article. The criteria the article seems closest to meeting is #1, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. . ." However, the only review I can find outside of interviews is this one in Publisher's Weekly, and an appearance on the NYTimes bestseller list. These two items to not make a book notable of a article. You are welcome to contribute to Brigitte Gabriel's article, which could use a sentence or two on the book. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Even you say it should be merged to Brigitte Gabriel, I don't see any section and part with sufficient content or passage covering about this book or another book.

The book Because They Hate is on NYT bestseller list, has C-SPAN Interview and coverage, written by the founder of "the largest anti-Islam group" in US, and mentioned by Former US President Jimmy Carter as prominent literature of Islamophobia in the country, How can you presume it is not notable? and plenty of books in Category:Books critical of Islam are less notable than this and the author is known by this book, so Don't be WP:OWN of the article because it complies the Core policies of Wikipedia WP:COPO — MusenInvincible (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

MusenInvincible, It seems that you have a bit of misunderstanding about Wikipedia policies, and what I was saying above so I hope that this can help. Let's look at your argument sentence-by-sentence.

"Even you say it should be merged to Brigitte Gabriel, I don't see any section and part with sufficient content or passage covering about this book or another book."

That's right. I do. Not sure why you're saying 'even you' though. I don't think that I've been a particularly loud advocate against this article. I'm just looking for notability, and I don't see it. Nothing more. You are correct in saying there isn't a section in her article as of yet-- that's what merging is by definition ("the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page.") I propose merging this article with hers, and I you are welcome to do that at any moment. I could do it too, but out of respect for your differing opinion I haven't.

The book Because They Hate is on NYT bestseller list, has C-SPAN Interview and coverage, written by the founder of "the largest anti-Islam group" in US, and mentioned by Former US President Jimmy Carter as prominent literature of Islamophobia in the country, How can you presume it is not notable?

1. Yes, it did appear on the NYT bestseller list (but only #12), which lends some notability to it. However, that by itself is not enough.
2. Again, you are correct in saying there are interviews on the book given by the author. However, I would again draw your attention to WP:BKCRIT which explicitly states "This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." and goes on to clarify "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Thus, the interviews do not go towards establishing notability.
3. While yes, Brigitte Gabriel is notable for an article on her, as the founder of the largest anti-Islam group in the US. However, she is not, in my opinion "of exceptional significance" so her authorship does not lend inherent notability to the book.
4. It's actually incorrect to say that Jimmy Carter said that, and in some ways a misinterpretation of facts. The PDF from the Carter Center that you cite mentions Because They Hate' once, and only in a passing manner. If he said it somewhere else, I'd love to see the source
5. I don't "presume it is not notable". I've looked at the sources, and don't see anything to merit a stand alone article. I agree that it merits a few sentences in her article. That will suffice.

plenty of books in Category:Books critical of Islam are less notable than this and the author is known by this book

Here, I'd like to direct you to other stuff exists and What about other stuff?, and I'll quote from the latter, which says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." Basically, other stuff existing being more or less notable has no bearing in this situation on the articles notability. For the latter part, I'll refer to my above comments and again say that notability is not inherited.

Don't be WP:OWN of the article because it complies the Core policies of Wikipedia WP:COPO

My behavior is not showing ownership of the article. What would be representative of ownership is ignoring consensus established in an AfD, reverting another editor, and continuing to not accept others opinions on the notability as they might be notable. If I had gone ahead and restored the redirect, repeatedly, not discussing with you here, that would display ownership. As for your latter statement, just being a nice-looking article does not overcome a lack of notability, and our core policies are second to establishing clear notability. Contrary to what you seem to believe, (" long as it's verifiable, it's acceptable"), an article has to satisfy notability before it can stand.

I've looked at all the sources in the article, and if there are more, I'd love to see them. I'd love to be able to see this article and say 'yes, that's notable'. But as of now, all I see is a 12th place on the NYTimes list, various passing mentions in reliable sources, a 144 word review in Publisher's Weekly. I'd agree, this is a borderline case, but surely we can cover all that's notable on this book in a couple sentences at the author's page? Hope this helps, and I'll happily continue a civil discussion here until we can agree in one way or another. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

See Category:Books critical of Islam, that several books (like Rage Against the Veil since 2006, Meyebela, My Bengali Girlhood, The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India, etc.) have only few sources and probably not notable enough, yet not be merged or deleted.

Rather than debating "is it notable or not?" also needing more references, It's okay to give {{Template:stub}} or another tag for better improvement. — MusenInvincible (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

MusenInvincible, Again, other stuff exists is not a valid proof of notability. Further, notability is the basic requirement of an article on Wikipedia. I have proposed a merge with Brigitte Gabriel, you're welcome to comment on that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not think so, better preserve the article as stub and let give opportunity for others to help and to improve the article quality, Wikipedia is not finished. Not even close. In fact, we're barely getting started. It's not (or never) finished. — MusenInvincible (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)