Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran: A People Interrupted

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 Keep (NAC) RMHED 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran: A People Interrupted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable book with no reliable 3rd party non-commercial sources that talk about it. Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple independent reviews published in academic journals. [1][2][3] easily located in the very first page of the GScholar search. cab (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per CaliforniaAliBaba's sources. I also found a (very negative) review at Asia Times [4] JohnWBarber (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (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.