Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophobia Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Rigadoun (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia Watch

Islamophobia Watch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Sources have been found for this article now ([1],[2]). I withdraw this nomination. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Unsure about notability, but in any event its unsourced right now, and if no 2nd party sources can be found for this article, then it fails WP:V and should be deleted. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Islamaphobia is notable indeed, and maybe the website can be linked there, but it isn't really notable enough to have an article. While searching, I found mainly the site, this wikipedia article, and some blogs. Maybe someday it will be notable. Or better yet, maybe someday it won't need to be, but on both issues, that day isn't today. Pharmboy (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have now added more material from a reliable source which provides significant coverage of the website's focus and contents. I think that, as well as Hari's review, is sufficient to confirm notability. Hence, Keep. ITAQALLAH 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Larson's paper is only one non-trivial mention. Hari's personal website is not a RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The other two sources you mentioned are trivial coverage. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The Hari article was originally published in Attitude which makes it a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not established with non-trivial coverage by reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 00:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The rules regarding websites are too restrictive in my opinion but this one doesn't make it even by my inclusionist standards. The Hari quote just says the website is rubbish, which it clearly is. Nick mallory (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - there appears to be at least two reliable sources discussing the website to a significant extent. I'm sure that suffices the criteria mentioned in WP:WEB. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (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.