I have seen this book. It is a despicable litany of racist trash, intended to prove Arabs=Nazis by lies and distortions. Every page has a lie on it. Examples: al-Husayni met Eichmann in Palestine in 1937 (wrong); Palestinian soldiers use the Nazi salute (vomit). I hardly ever saw a more disgusting book. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. After all, we have articles on Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Therefore, keep but the title must say "(book)". --Zero08:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reason we should have a page on every book ever published. But if there's a consensus to keep the title, it should be changed to The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book), and redirected to Amin al-Husayni. SlimVirgin(talk) 10:30, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very interesting article, not confusing at all. And about 'There's no reason we should have a page on every book ever published', we already have a page on virtually every film that has ever been created. Oh, and if you feel that this topic is too persuasive, there's an edit function.. --User:SoothingR 11:35, 4 September 2005 (GMT)
Strong Delete. Never heard of it and nobody of any note, fame or prestige has ever mentioned this. The book is clearly written by a racist - extremely anti-Islamic and designed to foment discord in an already hostile world. ---Mpatel (talk) 10:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that it's racist BS has nothing to do with whether it should have an entry on Wikipedia or not. There's no reason to move it since nothing else called 'The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism' exists. - ulayiti(talk)(my RfA)10:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this books in completely non-notable... below 300,000 on Amazon charts... not that they they are representative, but, the author of this book is equally non-notable. I tend to be an inclusionist which is why I haven't voted delete, but one thing I am sure of is that this page better not turn any moreso into propagangda. I removed its linking from the see also of Islamic terrorism because, in the scheme of that subject this is unimportant. As far as I can tell it will only be important on something like a book list or on a page about the author. Also, I promote instant banning of anyone who attempts to portray this anywhere as anything but a book. grenグレン10:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (copied from gren's talk page): If it's a real book it should be kept. Only keeping the article will cause no harm at all (and will be beneficial), but I think it could be a problem if somebody starts to represent it as more than it is. That's no basis for deleting an article though. - ulayiti(talk)(my RfA)11:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. When I first saw the article title, I was all, "Delete that puppy!" But when I realized that it is about a book of that name, an actual book purporting to be non-fiction, I chilled out. The topic may be offensive and the content of the book hateful BS, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it, especially if more wingnuts start citing it (a few already have) and other people need some non-wingnut source to describe the book and put it in context. So, the article has to be NPOV (which in this case, means explaining how contested its claims are and where the book is considered to be biased and inaccurate by most reputable scholars who have heard of it) even if the subject in question is not. In order to be sure that the POV book title does not harm the NPOV aspirations of Wikipedia, the article title should be appended with "(book)". --skoosh(háblame)11:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, as per SlimVirgin, to to Amin al-Husayni. Book fails notability teast, is inherently racist and bigoted and actually blames Muslims for the Jewish Holocaust of World War II.. nice. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
