Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Database for Islamic Banking and Finance


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @112  · 01:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

World Database for Islamic Banking and Finance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable database/website. The article claims the site is "widely reported" and "plays a key role in financial markets", but I can't find sources that confirm any such notability. The only independent reference given just briefly mentions the database. I think overall it fails WP:WEB. I should mention that this article was a blatant copyvio of a couple websites (it has been deleted under CSDG12 and A7 in the past), but I stubbed it down. IP editors have continually removed maintenance templates and kept re-adding copyvio material. PDCook (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to be just a repository website hosted by a university; it's not like this is an agency or an intergovernmental body. No significant coverage, and in fact pretty much no coverage of any sort, as far as I can tell.  I could create User:Glenfarclas/World Database of Non-Notable Websites (hey, maybe...), but that wouldn't entitle me to also create World Database of Non-Notable Websites.  I'm not seeing much of a difference here.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 06:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 14:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —PDCook (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no indication this would meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I restored a reference on the article that I probably deleted when removing copyvio material. The reference certainly doesn't demonstrate notability, but I thought I should make sure those of you who have already given your opinions can review the reference. PDCook (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My opinion remains the same.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow I figured that you (or anyone) would not be moved by it. PDCook (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2010 (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.