Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamonline.net


 * 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. --Core desat  21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamonline.net


This article is nominated for deletition, because it does not cite any of its sources. It is completely WP:OR and is not notable. See WP:WEB I will withdraw my nomination if this is improved and becomes notable.--Sefringle 04:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment,It got sources now please remove AFD, And check the references. Mak82hyd 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom must have missed the "The site is owned by Sunni Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi." in the lead. --Striver 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy close afd is not a place to vent "article needs better sourcing", we have talk pages for that. This is a waste of wikipedai resources.--Striver 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Striver. The articles subject is notable, and it should be improved and developed instead of deleted. Comment to Striver: The reason the admin deleted the Ali Sina article was (as he himself mentioned), that the article should use better sources. So apparently it is sometimes a reason to delete articles. However, I disagree with that decision. -- Karl Meier 08:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Didn't he delete it since he viewed it as unsourceable by notable sources, and stated that it was ok to re-create if notability could be established? ... but this is maybe not related to this afd.--Striver 11:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: He said that the reason he deleted the article was lack of proper sources being used, and mentioned that it could be recreated if such sources is used when writing a new article on the subject. He didn't say anything about notability. -- Karl Meier 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong speedy Keep The website is in top 1000 website according to alexa.com ranking and quite popular and notable among muslims around the world. does not teach hatred and does not incite killing of innocents. Mak82hyd 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This site is notable, as is Faith Freedom International. Both have been noted by various sources, and thus both should be kept. (Note: both are also notable because both are principal nexi of POV, where supporters of POVs gather, exchange information, and engage in action. FFI is notable because it is a focus of anti-Muslim sentiment by ex-Muslims. Likewise, Islamonline.net is a focus of pro-Muslim sentiment by Muslims. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG Speedy Keep - Stop wasting my time, see this . Wikipidian 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, just as with many other websites--it's going to be hard to find 'neutral'/reliable outside commentary about this site. In a sense it's notable... but in a sense it will always create problems like FFI and other such sites have. gren グレン 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: To those who think Faith Freedom International is not notable and Islamonline.net is: Why do you think so? Explain in the light of WP:WEB and tell me how exactly this follows the policy while FFI does not. --Matt57 18:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Widely differing Alexa rating, known and notable owner. For starters. --Striver 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Widely differing? Where do we draw the line for notability of a website? Who's drawing it? It doesnt matter if the owner (Ali Sina) has a pseudonym (sp). There are 'known' website owners with a website rank of 3,345,123. --Matt57 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete- non notable Astrotrain 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Like this article, I've nominated Allaahuakbar.net for deletion as well as it has a ranking of more than 300,000 according to Alexa. Sunnipath.com should also be nominated (ranking=76,000). More websites like these should be deleted if they are not notable. Category:Shi'a Islamic websites can also be studied for deleting any websites that are not notable, along with Category: Sunni Islamic websites. --Matt57 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not seeing how this site meets in a significant way, any of the criteria for WP:WEB. Before suggesting a Keep, please be sure to check WP:WEB and explain how it meets the criteria.--Matt57 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=http://www.islamonline.net This reference shows that this website is currently ranked 790. does  it not shows its notable enough...
 * Comments for all people who want this to be deleted.- http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=28448 this reference shows it is currently second most popular website about Islam. is it still not notable enough then can u please explain me why [faith freedom internation]] even though it is not in top 20000 still being kept in wikipedia. is it biasness or what. if this article is deleted then ffi article should be deleted as well. this article is very much notable. Mak82hyd 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Search engine or Alexa ranking is not a criteria for WP:WEB.--Matt57 03:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * would you consider changing your decision per the evidences provided below which assert its notability and suggest that it meets WP:WEB? if not, please explain your reasoning. thanks.  ITAQALLAH   04:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment let it be known that currently there are no third party links mentioning this website, which is necessary to establish notability in accordance with the WP:WEB policies.--Sefringle 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet Notability (web) criteria ... no external links that satisfy Reliable sources ... links to only the subject's website and Alexa do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards. &mdash;Dennette 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-- website quite comfortably meets WP:WEB, noted by the US government as "the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net". the SOAS describes it as "A comprehensive site covering a diverse range of issues, dedicated to promoting 'a unified and lively Islam that keeps up with modern times in all areas.'" . British newspaper The Guardian devotes a significant amount of discussion about IslamOnline.net and its content, labelling it "one of the largest Muslim websites" .  ITAQALLAH   05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * you could try a google search, but that is simply too much to sift through. alternatively you could specify edu websites, for which i found these notable resources, , , , , , , and i am sure there are more. i would have searched further and provided more sources, but i simply grew tired.  ITAQALLAH   05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per WP:WEB. Just have a look in Google scholar for: "Islamonline" -site:islamonline.net -site:islam-online.net, you'll find it referenced for many Islam related concepts, and some of these article are peer-reviewed article. Cheers!  TruthSpreader Talk 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is a quite notable site run by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a well known Islamic scholar world wide. -- Soft coder  Talk 05:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is more or less the web presence of Yusuf al-Qaradawi as far as I can see and it has a mention with the Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1398055,00.html . At the very least it has less of that horrible bling that both Fundi-Christian and Fundi-Islamic sites seem to love and searching is easy. Ttiotsw 05:53, 16 December 2006 (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.