Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Islamic Library


 * 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 Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Australian Islamic Library

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication that this website is notable per WP:WEB; only non-independent sources have been cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Update from page creator: On the basis of this, and its strong relevance to needs of print-disabled readers, we strongly recommend removing this article from the list of to-be deleted pages. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have included some independent references where the need for digital contents is highlighted and applauded for print-disabled readers. This site is a key resource to provide that for readers in multiple languages. Absence of this article may hinder their search for resources available to them on matters related to Islamic studies. In one of the reference, National Federation for the Blind has highlighted the importance of having publications available in digital formats.
 * Reference has been added in section on criticism
 * References to this page have been added from other relevant wikipedia pages (more to be done, a part of it is done as of now) including List of Digital Library Projects and Tafhim-ul-Quran.

On the basis of above and its strong relevance to numerous aspects on wikipedia as well as outside, I consider this to be a useful article on wikipedia. In coming few weeks, i plan to update the page with information about number of books available in different libraries in the form of a graph to show importance of this resource and importance of relevant wiki readers to know about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 03:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Remarks from Page Creator: I have referenced relevant information on some other wikipedia websites which clearly show the relevance and importance of this website as it presents information which is not available not accessible from other places and it is right of people searching that information to know about this source. Examples: Sahih Bukhari, Riyad us Saliheen, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sahih Muslim etc. (where previously there was no information available to readers regarding available commentaries etc.)
 * There is more to be done on this to provide relevant information to readers. I plan to do this over the weekend.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've worked with the creator to try to get this article into shape from the position it was in when I came across it on the NPP., inclusion doesn't hinge on whether the topic would be useful to the public - Wikipedia requires evidence that the library is of significance. If scholars want to use your resources, then they can find the site online through traditional search engines. Rather, WP is a place where entries need to fulfill specific guidelines as to sourcing and discussion in third party sources. Please read these help articles before you add anything more to the article, because it already has a lot of self-references. You don't need to provide us with a catalogue of books here; that's for the website itself. If the criticism of the library is there in third-party sources with editorial control, it suggests the library is notable, and I'd say weak keep. However, you need to find those sources to be able to keep the article here on WP. LS1979 (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sorry, I don't see it: almost all the sources listed are primary, and none of the others meet WP:IRS, and we can wave off any WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. Meeting the GNG doesn't come close to meaning that there "might" be sources that "suggest" notability. Either there are reliable, independent, third-party sources that discuss the subject in detail or there are not.  We don't get to keep conditional articles.  If this one doesn't have such sources, then userfy it to the creator until it does. Nha Trang 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this website. I did try and find impartial secondary sources yesterday to justify it's significance but could find none. Many other Islamic websites of this ilk exist such as http://www.al-islam.org/, http://islamiclibrary.com/ and http://www.muhaddith.org/ so I don't see why this one should be considered special. RookTaker (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I was able to easily find links to a number of digital libraries specializing in Islamic works. . I also found the aggregator site Digital Islam that lists web sites but does not include this one. I would advise the creators of this article to see if they can add this library to that latter site, since it appears to be a logical place for one to look for Islamic materials in digital form. LaMona (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2014 (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.