Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allaahuakbar.net
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Allaahuakbar.net
According to Alexa, this website's ranking is only 349,951. Therefore this website is not notable at all and hence does not comply with WP:WEB. --Matt57 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning towards delete. i did a quick, incomplete search and i did find some decent places discussing this website [1], [2] but i would have to search further to see if i can find anything else. this i'll do at a later time. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for those links but two links on Google that link to it doesnt say anything. Like I said its ranking is 300,000+ and it doesnt meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. This is what we have to go by - does it meet WP:WEB? Please apply these policies to this article and you'll find that your weak delete would probably turn into a strong one. --Matt57 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB - crz crztalk 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination--Sefringle 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm ' The site is owned by " India's Ansar us-Sunnah Library and Research Center". What is that? It is not a private person... if the organization is notable, then we might have a case for inclusion, considering Itaqallah's comments. --Striver 03:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- It doesnt look like the organization is notable. The question you should consider is: Does it satisfy WP:WEB? That is what we should go by because this is an article on a website. --Matt57 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Does Itaqallah's reference not fullfill "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."? --Striver 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- No it doesnt. Did you check the links? They're simply making references to the site's information. The above you quoted says "has been the subject". Allaahuakbar.net has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". When I make a reference link to a website, that is trivial as compared to publishing work and having that website as a subject of that work. If you're going to bring two articles that make a link to a website and say its notable - that for example can apply to virtually any random XYZ Geocities website as well. --Matt57 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here is the content of the first: "Orthodox Sunni Muslim organizations regard MSTA, NOI and FP as heretical cults. India's Ansar us- Sunnah Library and Research Center refers to NOI as the Nation of Kufr (unbelievers) for its emphasis on Black nationalism and identity and what it describes as a blend of false Muslim and Christian beliefs. The group's website places NOI alongside Shiites, which they describe as rafidah (rejectors), and other groups they consider heretics such as Sufis, Druze and Amhadis in a section warning Muslims to guard their faith (http://www.allaahuakbar.net).". Is that a "simple link"? --Striver 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Its not, I agree. But thats just one link. WP:WEB says "Multiple" and in addition it also says "non-trivial". Going by what BhaiSaab said for Faithfreedom, I'll say that in this case this mention is trivial. If you see the policy, it defines what trivial is and this is true in this case in my opinion. There are more popular Islamic websites than this, dont worry. This one is definitely non-notable. What you could do is find which pro-Islam sites are notable and make articles on those. --Matt57 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here is the content of the first: "Orthodox Sunni Muslim organizations regard MSTA, NOI and FP as heretical cults. India's Ansar us- Sunnah Library and Research Center refers to NOI as the Nation of Kufr (unbelievers) for its emphasis on Black nationalism and identity and what it describes as a blend of false Muslim and Christian beliefs. The group's website places NOI alongside Shiites, which they describe as rafidah (rejectors), and other groups they consider heretics such as Sufis, Druze and Amhadis in a section warning Muslims to guard their faith (http://www.allaahuakbar.net).". Is that a "simple link"? --Striver 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- No it doesnt. Did you check the links? They're simply making references to the site's information. The above you quoted says "has been the subject". Allaahuakbar.net has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". When I make a reference link to a website, that is trivial as compared to publishing work and having that website as a subject of that work. If you're going to bring two articles that make a link to a website and say its notable - that for example can apply to virtually any random XYZ Geocities website as well. --Matt57 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Does Itaqallah's reference not fullfill "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."? --Striver 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WEB. FrummerThanThou 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom --Mhking 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I should add that the ranking is not the only thing that makes this website not notable. Its simply its failure to satisfy WP:WEB and thats the main criteria that should be used. --Matt57 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria ... no external links that satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources ... links to the subject's website and an "under construction" domain do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards. —Dennette 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
