Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monthly Sultan-ul-Faqr Magazine


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Monthly Sultan-ul-Faqr Magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Having considered at first that this topic may have notability I have taken some tome to look at the English version of its web site. Having done so it appears to me that this is some form of evangelical website rather than a necessarily notable entity, and thus it concerns me that it both may have no genuine notability and may also be both an attempt to gain notability by being listed in Wikipedia, and may be seeking to use Wikipedia as a set of inbound links to enhance its reputation.

Wiser heads than mine may disagree, but I am proposing it for discussion in order to reach a consensus on whether it should remain here or not. For the moment please take this as a neutral nomination. I will consider my opinion further and give an opinion when I have it fully formulated. Fiddle  Faddle  14:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment A "neutral nomination"?? Is this a deletion discussion or not? If yes, please provide a valid delete rationale. If not, please withdraw this nom. Note that links from WP do not do anything to enhance a websites standing on, e.g., search machines like Google, because they are all tagged as "nofollow". --Randykitty (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That the nofollow attribute is present is not known to those who seek to use us for link purposes. Links here also drive traffic. The rationale that you missed is lack of notability, stated above. Fiddle   Faddle  20:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So what's a neutral nomination? And are you sure that an islamic magazine might be "evangelizing"? --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sources means no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete having made a neutral nomination I am persuaded that deletion is the sole route forward. Fiddle   Faddle  20:12, 4 August 2013 (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.