Talk:Islam/External links

This is an archive of past discussions about Islam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a collection of various discussions about external links in the Islam article. It has been refactored. The original version of this page contains copies of the comments exactly as they were at the time this page was created.

Please restrict comments only to the issue of which external links to include and exclude. Discussion on other topics should go back to the main talk page.

From Talk:Islam/Archive 2

User:Usedbook: 'fruitofislam' [ed: site no longer exists ] is objectionable and/or offensive. Should it be in the article? If it is, shouldn't it have a warning attached? Would such a thing be acceptable in articles on other religions?
User:Reddi: Either that link or a link to another site critical of Islam should be here. The link should have a disclaimer. Nobody is forced to click it. The reader has a right to see this view if they want. Links of this type should be acceptable in articles on other religions, yes. Other sites linked express points of view; why not this one?

Usedbook: Some links do get removed. 'fruitofislam' seems hateful and non-academic; it includes, for example, graphic photographs of corpses.
Reddi: Links shouldn't be removed simply because they offend people. Sometimes graphic information is needed. Will try to find a more moderate and scholarly critical view instead of reposting the link.

Silsor: The link was spammed, here and elsewhere, by the owner of the site. This is another reason to remove it.

From Talk:Islam/Archive 3

RK: Should any articles on religions have "criticism" links sections? If one has them all will have to have them, and such sections could go on forever and be used for tit-for-tat attacking. The sites used are not going to be impartial. Better, perhaps, to deal with such criticisms within the text of the article: it's easier to achieve NPOV that way.
Silsor: The section for criticism links is growing too large, but a section in the article specifically devoted to criticisms is even more troublesome. Perhaps the links should just be culled.
Reddi: The section isn't too large; the links are still less numerous than the favorable links. The criticism links are needed to provide balance and are useful resources; they aid citation of critical views, for example.
MyRedDice: A similar problem cropped up in Rachel Corrie: people added many links saying "Corrie is a saint" or "Corrie is the devil". Links to lists of opinions were a useful replacement and might help here as well.
JeMa: The list of critical links was removed. Discussion in the article is useful, but a long list of context-free links may not be NPOV. Abuse, for example by linking to bigoted sites, is easy. Perhaps they should be added back when they can be clearly related to discussion within the article: this will help sort the relevant from the useless.
Reddi: The links have been replaced and should be discussed while they are still in the article. The list is not that long (still shorter than the favorable links); the short descriptions of the sites and the header of the section provide the context; and again, they are a useful resource. The article seems unbalanced and critical links help correct this. Careful monitoring can prevent abuse.
Usedbook: Articles have limited space for links, which should be put to the best possible use. Fair-minded academic information, including criticism, is better than pictures of swords and corpses. Perhaps the vehemently critical sites should be placed in a different article, say Opposition to Islam?
Silsor: 3 pages of links is too many. What about a separate page for them?
Tanna: Agreed. Some are biased, others are more appropriate to other articles; sites about Islamic art, for example, should be linked from the article on Islamic art.

Zora: Someone has repeatedly tried to replace all the external links with links to Salafist sites. They have not discussed this and seem to want only to make the article reflect their viewpoint. How should this be handled?
Zora: The links section seems to be growing. Adherents of various views are trying to draw attention to their perspectives. If this continues the link section will become useless for research. Perhaps links to specific sects, teachers, etc. should be kept in the articles devoted specifically to those topics. (If those articles don't exist, they should be written and linked from here.) Links in the main article should either be academic, or for sites and organizations without any pronounced sectarian position. Good general knowledge sites.
Zora The Open Directory has all the links that were cut, plus others. It is a good resource; using it is an excellent solution.
Mirv Agreed, but how long will the solution last?

From Talk:Islam/Archive 6

Zora: Links to the Al-Mawrid Institute add little to the article; academic content is non-existent. Instead of placing them here, why not make sure they're included in the ODP lists?

Zora: arabic-islamic.org -- or something like that -- might actually be a useful link? Why was it removed?
OneGuy: Most of it is in Spanish. It would be more useful in the Spanish Wikipedia than here.

Zora: Forum links have been removed. They are proselytizing sites; there are thousands of those, and if this article links one, it will have to link them all. Try to make sure they're included in the ODP instead.
Zora: People have added links both favorable and stridently critical. [ed: this is the first appearance of faithfreedom.org, added by 213.140.17.102 (talk · contribs) and quickly removed by Mirv. ] Let's stick to using the directories instead of bloating this article's link section yet again. Treat all such sites equally: give them all a chance to be linked, but at one remove.
Rickyrab: What about sites that aren't listed in the directories?
Zora: Dmoz is a community project and is open to new links. Tell people to make sure their links are included there. Perhaps a short explanation of the current solution is in order, along with an explanation of how to add links to the directories.
Farhansher: There is a difference between logical debate and plain insult. faithfreedom.org is the latter. Its creator is a bigot and does not know what he is talking about: he claims Sufis and Muslim scientists are not real Muslims, only suicide bombers and Wahhabis are. He refuses open debate. The site is not an informative resource.

Zora: Does the Open Directory exclude the saner anti-Islamic sites, such as answering-islam and Ibn Warraq's site? There are reasonable even if one disagrees with them. Is there another directory one could use instead? We shouldn't try to set up our own directory here.

Zora: An anonymous editor added a link section entitled "popular sites on Islam". They all seem to be Sunni and possibly Salafi-leaning. Letting them stay would lead to the old link-wars in which each Islamic group put its links on the list, which grew like a cancer. The directory sites link to everyone. Let's leave it at that.

From Talk:Islam

(as of 23:03, 23 July 2005)

Grenavitar: Addition of a "general links" section, and which sites it should contain, ought to be discussed first.
Anonymous editor: The links posted were not permanent, and other editors who wish to insert informative links which are not POV-based should feel free to do so. Many readers are not going to use the directories, so perhaps some such links should be here instead.
Grenavitar: What is factual and what is POV based is subjective and will thus create problems. The directory solution is a good one, but a balanced general links section might be in order as well.

Anonymous editor: What are the other regular editors' opinions on this? Should this article have general informative links? If so, which?
Zora There were once dozens of links, to different sects, to different teachers, and more were being added each day. Anyone who wanted more publicity for his/her preferred version of Islam was adding a link. Any efforts at selectivity provoked shouts of discrimination. Everyone agreed that sticking to the directories was the best idea, and we should stick to it. Links have been allowed to proliferate freely on the pages for the various sects/versions of Islam.

July 3

Anonymous: Factual external links about Islam should be added to the article. www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm is one such link and was added to the directories of critical viewpoints; why was it removed? The links there are more extensive than anything given in the other directories. Faithfreedom is clearly anti-Islam and its links are to various critics of Islam.
Mirv: The dmoz directories are more extensive, better-categorized, more multilingual, and already include faithfreedom.org, among other sites. Long ago, this article had a bloated link list, which would have been longer if not for periodic trimming. Zora removed most of the links, I added the directories, and all agreed that this was the sensible thing to do. There are link pages on other sites similar to the one on faithfreedom, e.g. http://bismikaallahuma.org/Archive/links.htm and http://islamfortoday.com/special.htm . None of them should be included either.
Anonymous: The dmoz directory has 27 entries critical of Islam in general. The rest are essentially links to Islamic sites. The other sites in the "opposing views" subdirectories are broken down thus: Ahamadiyya(32), Deendar Anjuman (2), Islamism (22), Nation of Islam (19), Quranites (1), Shia (3), Submitters (3), Sufism (13), Sunni (3). These are all essentially pro-Islamic sites. There are also subdirectories for Christian Views (20), Ex-Muslim views(3), Hindu Views (3), and Jewish Views (1). Faithfreedom links to 74 sites. Perhaps four or five of these are also included in dmoz. Readers should have the best information available. The bickering on this page [ed: Talk:Islam is meant] clearly shows plenty of sectarian issues within Islam, and the contra-views of Islam are needed to understand the passion demonstrated. Compare the link section of Hinduism; a few more links here will not hurt.
Farhansher: A serious encyclopedia should not include links to uninformative hate sites like faithfreedom. It should stick to reasoned and informative pages. The external link section of Hinduism does not include anything comparable to faithfreedom.
Zora faithfreedom should not get any special treatment. Rather than link directly to sites about Islam in general (except for academic sites and sites about non-controversial specific topics), we link to directories, which have the space and the mission to be completely inclusive. Anyone who goes to the directories will find ALL the sites.
Dbachmann: faithfreedom appears to be a site about Islamism. At first glance, it contains very cheap and sarcastic Islam-bashing, and it has certainly no theological relevance. It may fit on Islamism but would probably be more appropriate on Islamophobia. Just like we don't link to pure proselytizing sites, we don't link to fearmonging sites.
Urchid The links on FaithFreedom belong on this page.

Nickbee: The issue is not whether you agree with Faithfreedom or not. The point is that the link page at FFI has more relevant and varied links than at dmoz. dmoz is not more comprehensive and there are not too many links here; Hinduism has 4 or 5 times more. There are many people who agree with the POV expressed in the faithfreedom link, as is evident by the number of sites and their readership, so a link should be provided. Is this really "special treatment"?
Mirv: As Zora explains, it was long ago decided not to link to any sectarian sites from this page, but rather to use the non-sectarian directories. Selection among the thousands of pro- and anti-Islamic websites should not be subject to the whims and biases of editors: this would lead to endless fighting over which links to include and exclude. Passing the job of link selection off to dmoz and other directories allows us to include all sorts of sites without bias.
Dbachmann: Just because it's anti-Islamic doesn't make faithfreedom a quality site. We won't accept any cheesy islamist proselytization links either.
Urchid: faithfreedom provides a legitimate counter POV for this article and deserves to be presented.

Nickbee: This policy on external links is not uniformly applied; Hinduism, for example, has proselytizing links. I am not linking to Faithfreedom directly, but to a page that contains 74 links to contra-views on Islam. These links are not available to readers. Are there link directories on other sites? Are those listed in dmoz? If not, then they should be included. Should a good encyclopedia not offer access to information that is available out there? Why deny an external link to a page that obviously has significant readership?
Dbachmann: The consensus arrived at on this article, which has a long history of pov-pushers trying to add their precious websites, was to be restrictive about biased links. This doesn't necessarily hold for other articles, although as a rule, the farther out your site, the smaller the chance of inclusion.
Mustafaa: This is supposed to be an enyclopedia. Would Britannica, say, link to "faithfreedom.org"? Links like these only reduce Wikipedia's credibility. As for the Hinduism article, perhaps its link section should be pruned
Mirv: Reiterate Dbachmann's point that this is not a policy, but a longstanding consensus among the regular editors of this page. The link to faithfreedom may not be to its front page, but it is to a page with www.faithfreedom.org in the URL which is closely linked to the rest of the pages on the site. The directories link to many sites with contra-views (including faithfreedom), which themselves link to similar sites, and so on. The links are still available, they just require two more clicks to reach. Other sites have link directories; none of them should be included either. [Recap of previous arguments against including anything but the directories trimmed.]

Nickbee: There is no need to link to all the sites. The number of sites about Islam is finite, and the contra views are not many, and that is why the collection of contra views of Islam on the link page at FFI is valuable. Wikipedia is not Britannica; it is supposed to be better. Providing a link to a page that has useful information is required for Wikipedia to be successful. There is no policy that links can only be provided by dmoz.
Grenavitar: Wikipedia's success is not the issue. Faithfreedom offers little relevance in religious debate. Comparing a typical encyclopedia article on Islam might be helpful.
Nickbee: If success is not the issue then why not include a good contra-view to the topic in the external links?
Dbachmann: Why not? It is not a good link; in fact, it is godawful, full of absurd hate. Get it listed in any of the linked directories, and people can reach it from here in two clicks.
BrandonYusufToropov: Wikipedia's success is due to the perception that it is (generally) trustworthy. Why? Because there are guidelines, traditions, and structural safeguards here that stand in contrast to the bias that is so rampant elsewhere, and all too evident on partisan sites like ff. If one asks "How come the editors at (to use a conservative example) The Wall Street Journal don't run front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge?" Because front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge are the opposite of what the Wall Street Journal is. If it started running op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge, it wouldn't be the Wall Street Journal anymore.
Dbachmann: True, except the WSJ is not a good example; most of its articles would be torn to pieces on Wikipedia in a matter of minutes for being ridiculously biased and rife with strawmen.
BrandonYusufToropov: Agreed.

Nickbee: Some editors may not consider the site "good", but others do.

July 13

Nickbee: There is an article on Ali Sina, who runs FFI, but a good source that he provides is not linked here. Why? He is an ex-Muslim who must have had a good reason for leaving Islam; why shouldn't his viewpoint be represented?
Grenavitar: An ex-Muslim does not necessarily make a better scholar on Islam than a secularist or Muslim. Anyone who has researched the sources knows about Islam, completely independent of what religion the person is. A typical Muslim might know more about ritual, but that does not mean they know more about theology.
Dbachmann: faithfreedom.org is linked from Ali Sina, where it belongs.

Nickbee: Removal of the link is censorship.
Grenavitar: Try reading a real paper encyclopedia. See how that treats Islam, and what it says about it. Hopefully that will tell you something about the use of FFI links. If that fails, try adding a KKK external link over at African Americans. That's a far more notable critique of black Americaness than Ali Sina's stuff is of Islam.
Dbachmann: This is going nowhere. Not listing the link here is no more censorship than the New York Times refusing to print someone's columns on its front page.

July 17

Anonymous: Link to any or all pro-Islam sites, fine, but link to anti-Islam sites as well.
Dbachmann: ffi.org is a site of an alleged apostate, so perhaps the link could be added to Apostasy in Islam, where at least it will be relevant (and there are only two links there so far, so pruning is not yet an issue). Insisting on putting it here demonstrates Wikipedia:Main article fixation.

Anonymous: The POV on Islam held by ex-Muslims and apostates should be expressed here, even if only in an external link.
Nickbee The views on Islam of Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Dr. Yunus Sheik, Robert Spencer, SecularIslam.org, etc., need at least an external link.
Zora: Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq are simply not in the same league. Ibn Warraq doesn't engage in cheap hate speech and uses his books to present useful selections from academic viewpoints on Islam. His books are found in many of the reference lists in the Islamic articles. Of course, they are regularly purged by anon editors, presumably Muslim, who object to his presence, and just as often restored by me or another editor. You can't leap from "my favorite demagogue isn't featured" to "no criticism is allowed".

Nickbee: How about Robert Spencer, SecularIslam, Dr. Yunus Sheik, and others? Why not link to a list of links provided by Robert Spencer? A list of links to the POV of Ex-muslims is a useful addition to this article.
Zora: Ibn Warraq is an ex-Muslim. His first book was Why I Am Not A Muslim. He publishes under a pseudonym because he's afraid of assassination. Is that authentic enough? There are also separate articles on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji.
Dbachmann: By all means, write an article on Christian converts from Islam, and we can link it from the see also. My prediction is that Muslim converts from Christianity will immediately follow, but then the dispute will at least finally take some sort of productive form.

Dbachmann: Consensus against the ffi link seems clear. Further addition of the link is in violation of policy. (ᛏ) 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

July 20

Zora All the pro-Islam websites are linked through the DMOZ directory. All the anti-Islam websites are linked though the DMOZ directory. There is no discrimination against faithfreedom, but neither is it getting any special treatment.

Ericd: What about adding similar links in the articles of other religions, as I have done in Christianity? Ericd 22:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Recap, and is it time for a poll?

So, as I see it, there are two basic lines of argument here:

The first is that we should stick with something like the current list, which has been in place since last October: instead of including any sites with an agenda, whether pro or contra, treat all of them equally by linking to the two dmoz lists. The reasons:
1. There are thousands of sites with an agenda, pro or anti, apologetic or polemical.
2. This page cannot link to all of them. Wikipedia is not a link repository, and even a selection no larger than that in the dmoz lists would be far too much for this article. Selectivity would be necessary. Such selectivity would be an editorial bias. Each and every site would spark an argument every time someone tried to add or remove it, so such arguments would be endless.
3. dmoz is set up as a link repository and is reasonably inclusive and neutral.
4. If we leave the selection of sites up to a third party which is A) reasonably neutral and B) better-equipped to handle it, then we obviate the endless arguments over which links to include and which to exclude. The reader is offered a selection of sites far larger than anything this article could reasonably contain, and all are an equal number of clicks away.
5. Therefore, we should link only the dmoz lists.

The second is that we should include agenda-driven links like http://www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm and http://www.faithfreedom.org/library.htm, whether that agenda be pro- or anti-Islamic, and leave the selection up to editors. The reasons:
1. The information and perspectives on these pages should be available to the reader.
2. These pages contain links and information that are not linked directly from the dmoz lists.
3. Therefore, pages like this should be linked directly from this article.

Each of these seems to have been argued thoroughly without reaching a consensus. Is it time for a poll? Would further discussion of these two arguments be helpful? Are the summaries fair? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Replace dmoz with FFI list?

I don't think that there is any debate that there should be a link to a directory of sites that are critical of Islam. It seems to me that http://www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm is a much more comprehensive collection of links than the DMOZ Contra Islam directory. Since there is a link to a "contra Islam" directory, it might as well be as comprehensive a directory as possible. It is evident that http://www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm does this much better than the DMOZ Contra Islam directory (the faithfreedom directory is easily 10 times the size of the DMOZ directory, and the DMOZ directory is so small as to be considered unreasonably non-inclusive). It would seem logical then to replace the DMOZ directory with http://www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm Note that when it comes to a directory of sites that are explicitly categorized as "critical of Islam" then the creator of that directory need not be neutral. A directory of links critical of Islam is, by defintion, not neutral. The non-neutrality of the source of the directory is not a valid point of argument because we are actively seeking a non-neutral directory of links. If the party opposing inclusion of the faithfreedom directory can find an alternative directory that is comparable in scope and size, then that would suffice, but the DMOZ contra Islam directory clearly does not suffice for obvious reasons. It seems to me that so far no one has considered the possibility of replacing the rather useless DMOZ contra Islam directory link with a more useful (i.e. larger) directory, such the faithfreedom one. This seems like a reasonable compromise, and I cannot see why those generally opposed to criticisms of Islam would prefer one directory of critical sites over another directory of critical sites. --Zeno of Elea 18:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the faithfreedom directory really superior? Dmoz offers several advantages that are not apparent from the small number of links on the initial page:

Organization: Sites opposing specific aspects of Islam are categorized as such, as are sites with a certain religious bent (Christian, ex-Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish). FFI does this, but to a much lesser extent; the links are sometimes described but are not organized in any coherent fashion. Dmoz cross-references other relevant categories (e.g. [1]), while FFI does not.
Languages: While FFI contains content in other languages, its links page is only in English, and the sites are almost entirely in English as well. Dmoz includes a larger number of links to sites in other languages.
Greater inclusiveness: Many intra-Islamic opposing views may be found, while these are absent from FFI.
It is possible to reach the FFI list from the dmoz category in three clicks: first second third. The reverse is not true.

Too, the numbers comparison is slightly misleading. The FFI list includes 74 links, true, but the dmoz list, with all its subcategories, includes 132—and that doesn't count the cross-referenced but highly relevant categories, e.g. [2]. While I agree that the collector of a list of critical links need not be neutral, I do not think that the FFI list is in any way superior to the dmoz index. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

First let's talk about links to non-English webpages. This is English Wikipedia, and as such we should operate on the assumption that the audience is monolinguial anglophone. So the 39 DMOZ links to Arabic, Danish, French and Swedish websites are of no apparent utility here. Now, it should be clarified what is meant by a directory of websites "critical of Islam." The phrase "critical of Islam" implies non-Muslim criticism of Islam as a whole, it doesn't refer to intra-Muslim sectarian strife or criticism of specific sects or related religions, such as the Submitters or Nation of Islam. For example, the DMOZ directory contains a subdirectory on Sunnism, which contains a link to a Shiah criticism of Sunni Islam. Does that count as a criticism of Islam? I really don't think so. The DMOZ directory of sites "critical of Islam" contains a large number of links to Islamic appologetic websites, such as http://www.harunyahya.com/ I really don't think that a directory containing http://www.harunyahya.com/ can be called a directory of links that are "critical of Islam." The DMOZ subdirectory of links critical of "Islamism," for example, belongs in the Islamism article, and the subdirectory of links criticla of Sunnism, for example, belongs in the Sunnism article. What we are interested in here is a directory of websites that are critical of Islam itself. In this light, it can be seen that the DMOZ directory only contains 34 links that are critical of Islam. Compare to the 74 links listed at FFI. While it is true that the FFI directory can be accessed from DMOZ by three links, it is worth noting that it is actually 4 links away from the Wikipedia article, and it is unlikely that a reader would follow these 4 links to the FFI directory. I strongly feel that the FFI directory is of a higher quality than the DMOZ link in that FFI has a larger number, wider variety of links with more content intended for a wider audience (as opposed to links oriented towards members of a specific faith, e.g. Christian, Jewish or Hindu), and is more deserving of the title "links critical of Islam" than the DMOZ directory (which contains links even to Harun Yahya, as mentioned). The DMOZ directory is lacking in a number of very important links, such as the writings of Denis Giron, who is an ex-Muslim and holds academic degrees in philosophy and mathematics, is fluent in Arabic, Hebrew, and English, and is well versed in the three Abrahamic religions (though he condones none of them). FFI also links to Taslima Nasrin a famous ex-Muslim femenist who has been sentenced to death in Bangladesh and also nominated for the Noble Peace Prize. And so on and so on. The DMOZ list is sadly lacking in many respects. I don't think that the FFI directory is particularly great (especially the organization of the links, and some broken links), but I do think that the aforementioned reasons demonstrate that the DMOZ link is less appropriate than the FFI link. --Zeno of Elea 01:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There is another importaint point. Mirv has argued against replacing the DMOZ Contra Islam directory with the FFI directory on the basis of the fact that without making this replacement, the FFI directory is accessable from the Wikipedia article through a sequence of 4 link clicks. But even if the DMOZ Contra Islam directory is replaced by the FFI directory, the DMOZ Contra Islam directory will still only be 2 clicks away from the article, through the DMOZ Islam directory (since the DMOZ Contra Islam directory is a subdirectory of the DMOZ Islam directory). So by replacing the Contra Islam DMOZ link with the FFI link, we are strictly adding information to the article without losing any information. In other words, the DMOZ Contra Islam directory link is redundant since it can easily be accessed through the DMOZ Islam directory link. But replacing the DMOZ Contra Islam directory link with the FFI directory link, a great deal of information is added to the article, without losing any information and while maintaining the balance of one islamic websites directory and one directory of links critical of islam. By rejecting inclusion of the FFI link, a great deal of information is being lost (and I would say, is being suppressed by certain POVs that do not wish to give balanced coverage to sites that are critical of Islam). --Zeno of Elea 05:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno has stated it very well. Please link to FFI to provide a balance viewpoint.

Zeno is absolutely correct that DMOZ subdirectory "Contra Islam links" can hardly be called contra to Islam links. FFI links clear, unambiguous, and strong views against islam provide a look into the world of Islam and Islam itself that "they" strongly oppose. I do not see why DMOZ has to be replaced. Why not merely add the FFI link? Nickbee 17:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

There are two good reasons for completely replacing DMOZ COntra Islam. Firstly, that directory is subset to DMOZ Islam. Secondly, including all three directories will upset the balance, causing edit and revert wars (which has already happened and is the reason for this whole discussion). --Zeno of Elea

that dmoz links to ffi is a reason to replace dmoz with ffi? to the contrary, you may reach ffi from dmoz with a single click. The dmoz directory is clearly superior in my opinion. The point of a directory is to organize links, not to pile up every site on the internet, you may as well do a web search for that. Also, the dmoz directory is operated by a neutral body, while ffi is a very questionable site indeed, imho incapable of good judgement, and linking their linklist would drive traffic to their site, invariably endorsing them (the page does not only contain links, but also the menu of their own site). It seems obvious that driving traffic to ffi is the main motivation of people wanting the link here, since ffi is easily found on the dmoz list, and can be reached from the present Islam article in three clicks. Singling it out any more would just not be in accordance with its notability or quality. dab (ᛏ) 11:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)