Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran and Medicine

: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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

=[[Quran and Medicine]]=

:{{la|Quran and Medicine}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quran_and_Medicine Stats])

:({{Find sources|Quran and Medicine}})

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective database (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quran_and_Medicine&diff=537862632&oldid=537857040 this edit] for information on current coverage). No independent sources. Article created by the journal's [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quran_%26_Medicine_Cover.jpg production manager]. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Article creation way too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers,] Riley 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete.All the due respect for its subject, but the magasine itself do not seem so relevant.--Lal.sacienne (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete This brand-new journal has a ways to go before it gains notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as the only sources seem to be the journal's own web page and the page of a government body with some relation to the journal. Notability has not been established and, given the young nature of this journal, likely can't be established. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:36, 24 February 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.