Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nation of Islam

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 speedy keep. Nom withdrew (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Nation of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I count three RS references among the plethora of SPS, and the Christian Science Monitor appears non-trivial, thus Notability appears to be met. While the article can certainly stand to be cleaned up and rewritten in a more encyclopedic voice, I see nothing that's un-fixable advertisement. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An advertisement? Ads don't usually include entire sections criticizing the subject. Not sure what the problem is, since this one seems to be pretty well balanced and sourced. The group itself seems notable enough as a breakaway from the Nation of Islam. [1] No reason to delete. Mandsford (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of significant coverage in reliable news sources so meets notability guidelines.--BelovedFreak 21:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:54, 3 March 2010(UTC)
• Keep - appears to be notable and covered by RS. What's the problem again? Maybe Ism can clarify the reasons of putting it up. Wikid^as© 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No Wikidas, I can't. I withdrawl this nomination - I was wrong - and agree with Keep. Ism schism (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2010 (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.