- 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not provide a valid, guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, all three !votes reflect this notion to various degrees, and nobody other than the nominator has recommended deletion. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 12:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Jihadist extremism in the United States
- Jihadist extremism in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is completely biased and one sided. NovaSkola ( talk) 21:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- keep No discussion of its 'one sidedness' is evident in the edit history of this article. The article is extensively documented. Just because the article content might be disagreeable to someone or another is not a reason to even consider deletion of an article from WP. Hmains ( talk) 04:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented by nominator. Clear GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. If there is a content issue, deletion is not the answer. Carrite ( talk) 06:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Whether an article is biased or not is irrelevant to deletion policy. Bias can be fixed by editors; notability is a separate thing entirely, and this topic is notable. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:26, 4 May 2014 (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.
- 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not provide a valid, guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, all three !votes reflect this notion to various degrees, and nobody other than the nominator has recommended deletion. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 12:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Jihadist extremism in the United States
- Jihadist extremism in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is completely biased and one sided. NovaSkola ( talk) 21:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- keep No discussion of its 'one sidedness' is evident in the edit history of this article. The article is extensively documented. Just because the article content might be disagreeable to someone or another is not a reason to even consider deletion of an article from WP. Hmains ( talk) 04:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented by nominator. Clear GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. If there is a content issue, deletion is not the answer. Carrite ( talk) 06:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Whether an article is biased or not is irrelevant to deletion policy. Bias can be fixed by editors; notability is a separate thing entirely, and this topic is notable. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:26, 4 May 2014 (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.