Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ummah.com

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummah.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not really noteworthy; haven't seen subject mentioned by reliable sources beyond the garden variety glancing mention.user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 19:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More rationale:

- This article relies solely upon itself, except for in the "jewish hitlist" section
- A google search can only find other forums pointing to the page, and nothing shows up in the "news" search. user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 20:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Subject is non-notable by the standards of WP:GNG, WP:WEB and WP:42.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found some links but certainly nothing actually better and overall examining this found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of any independent, in-depth, third-party coverage. As such also fails WP:WEB. ERK^talk 22:40, 21 June 2016 (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.