Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Islamic Propagation Center

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Islamic Propagation Center[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NORG. I am unable to find any independent coverage apart froms listings in organisation directories. My regular Google search hit list stops after only 49 unique hits, which tells something about its lack of notability. Of the five article references, two are not independent ("about us" and an article by founder Mohammad Shaikh) and three (including a decades-old translation of the Qur'an) are just irrelevant. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The items that come up on a Google search are about three different institutions, one in Canada, one in South Africa and one in Pakistan. It’s not clear whether there’s any link between them or whether possibly the Canadian institution has just taken the same name. If anything the SA institution may be notable, but I don’t think the Canadian one is. Mccapra (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references given are either primary, or from religious organizations linked to the subject. There is no proper independent secondary RS on this institution as a notable entity for WP. Britishfinance (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2019 (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.