Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tablighi Jamaat


 * 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. Nominated by an apparent single-purpose account, fixing NPOV issues does not require AfDing, and debate is highly snowbally toward keeping anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat
Biased and very untrue comments. Streetfighter23 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of this nomination. If the article contains "biased and very untrue comments" then this should be sorted out on the its talk page, which already contains considerable discussion. The article is already flagged for neutrality check; the right thing at this stage is to leave it at that and let the authors get on with it. BTLizard 10:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - not adhering to npov isn't a reason for deletion by itself. MER-C 12:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - not adhering to npov information is accurate, and neutral Peacekeaper1 12:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep organisation is very notable (although the article doesn't say so, it was associated in the media with the conversion of Mohammad Yousuf). Further, NPOV issues are a reason to talk them out, rather than kill the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * NB: Disregard my edit summary. I'm saying "keep", regardless of what I inadvertently typed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 20 October 2006 (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.

Why not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.215.197 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)