Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towards Understanding Islam (book)

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 Keep, article has already been tagged for expansion. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towards Understanding Islam (book)

Speedy DeleteStub is too small and simply states the articles name. The links can be placed on the authors page--AeomMai 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete qualifies as db-empty —M e ts501^talk 22:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — The page is four months old and still only one sentence. It's hardly encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It will expanded. This Qadiani inspired deletion of Islam related articles that need expansion and review is regrettable. I think Qadiani/Ahmad related articles can also be considered for deletion.

Siddiqui 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. "Stub is too small" is not a good reason for deletion, book is not a vanity title. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author, although I wouldn't be upset by a speedy delete. (List of subjects and/or section titles is not encyclopedic.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the content added may no longer make it a speedy candidate, however there is much room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Siddiqui, are you really convinced that I deleted this article because it is against ahmadiyyat? First amalgamists believe in fairness to all, but you are going too far. I came to this article through the author's page, and when I went to the article, it was ONE SENTENCE. That is not enough to warrant it's own page, and if there was more information I wouldn't have flagged it for deletion.--AeomMai 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:51, 15 June 2006 (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.