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.
DeleteIslamaphobia is notable indeed, and maybe the website can be linked there, but it isn't really notable enough to have an article. While searching, I found mainly the site, this wikipedia article, and some blogs. Maybe someday it will be notable. Or better yet, maybe someday it won't need to be, but on both issues, that day isn't today.
Pharmboy (
talk)
21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I have now added more material from a reliable source which provides significant coverage of the website's focus and contents. I think that, as well as Hari's review, is sufficient to confirm notability. Hence, Keep.
ITAQALLAH22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete The rules regarding websites are too restrictive in my opinion but this one doesn't make it even by my inclusionist standards. The Hari quote just says the website is rubbish, which it clearly is.
Nick mallory (
talk)
09:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - there appears to be at least two reliable sources discussing the website to a significant extent. I'm sure that suffices the criteria mentioned in
WP:WEB.
ITAQALLAH22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)reply
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.