Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New look for islam


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New look for islam
Personal Essay Yandman 12:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. May be a copyvio. MER-C 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic OR essay. I thought everyone knew that this year, the new look for Islam is polka dots. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (anyone able to establish if it's a copyvio?) --Charlesknight 14:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as essay... originator might want to consider getting a blog.--Isotope23 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jpe|ob 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, personal essay. NawlinWiki 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to move it to userspace. Baring that, delete. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already in his userspace, and I explained to him the difference betwwen the two.Yandman 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Prolog 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- IslaySolomon 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The first three words say it all: By Wessam Reda. Definitive original research, already in creator's userspace. The only reference, on top of all that, is the Quran, most likely considered a primary source and therefore not a reliable source in this article. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. —dustmite 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete This shouldn't even have been nominated. Someone should have deleted it right away. Two seconds are all that's needed to identify this article as crap.UberCryxic 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the article's lack of value is clear, I don't believe it meets any of the CSD. —dustmite 01:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom. Cedars 01:20, 1 October 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.