Talk:The New World Order (Robertson book)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Fair use rationale for Image:NWO Pat Rob.jpg[edit]

Image:NWO Pat Rob.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability[edit]

A book by Pat Robertson is obviously notable. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see this Review: [1].
In fact, it's the most notable WP:Primary source on its subject: [2], according to Wikipedia itself.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Every topic must establish its own notability.
Yes, book reviews are a good start, but if that's all you have to go on, you'll want more than one.
That has nothing to do with the notability of the book. Lots of topics are the product of books that don't have their own WP article. For the guidelines on the notability of books, please read WP:BK. I personally don't know if the book can be considered notable or not, I haven't investigated it yet. I will if it is brought up at WP:AFD though. -Verdatum (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was on the New York Times (weekly) bestseller list, so I will no longer dispute its notability, although there's no mention of that (being on a bestseller list) in WP:N or WP:NB. So, in spite of the fact that L has not provided significant evidnece of notability (the only relevant evidence is one review), I won't dispute notability further. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arthur Rubin. I appreciate your being open to refutation by evidence and proof. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight?[edit]

When the only substantial content of the article is a description of a single critical review making an accusation of anti-Semitism, isn't this a textbook case of WP:UNDUE? (And the Pat Robertson article itself has a section about the book with the same problem.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]