Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim jurists


 * 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The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP (withdrawn by nominator). Harro5 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Muslim jurists
Problem: Not necessary, could lead to tension. I dunno, help me out?  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  02:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep So, will you also vfd List of Jewish jurists, since it can "lead to tension"? --Striver 02:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, thanks for the sarcasm. I was just concerned about it, I did not think it was necessary, and I found that it would lead to tension because it gives (in my opinion) an unnecessary division on the terms of religion. Wouldn't it be better to have a list like Zambian jurists?  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Striver. --YixilTesiphon 02:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep important topic. Smmurphy 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well damn, I did know....after all, I was asking for help in the top nomination.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  02:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wan't a very constructive vote, I'm trying to figure out what to add to the article, so it was goot that it was posted.Smmurphy 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to forfeit this nomination, my mistake ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  03:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Would be a regular keep except for shortage of content.  Religious Muslim law does exist and have force in some countries. Durova 03:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete  Nothing wrong in principle with the article, but as it stands it is not encyclopediac since it doesn't add anything that is not decipherable from the title alone.  Hu 03:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: An editor after my vote has significantly improved the article.  Hu 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * *bow* Smmurphy 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If not obvious by now, my vote is keep ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  03:33, 3 December 2005 (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.