- 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 per WP:SNOW. Nom provides no reasoning. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Zafar Bangash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not notable. Article is mostly quotes from the subject's own writings. "Quote farm" according to one person Shatt al-Arab (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup -- clearly notable:
- Google News search: 4 press mentions in the last 30 days
- Google News archive search: 31 more press mentions
- Keep: there are clearly sources for the article, but the article needs rewriting so it's not just a collection of quotes. However, the nom's argument of non-notability doesn't hold. Justin chat 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Shatt al-Arab has an opinion but that is no reason to delete this page. The quotes are properly sourced and taken in context. When citing controversial comments, quoting is much better than paraphrasing.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (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.