Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Islamic Universities

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.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

League of Islamic Universities

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An Arab organisation. Fails

talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Not clear if ‘an Arab organisation’ (which anyway it isn’t) is meant to be a deletion rationale. Sources at 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I note that nominator removed several citations. Any reason for that? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the dead links only.

talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Deadlinks should be left. See

WP:KDL. They should be restored. Among various other purposes, they indicate the range of sources that have discussed the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its got respectable independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason cited to delete. My !vote is not an endorsement of the organization's mission, but only that it appears to pass
WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Looks notable enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 18 October 2019 (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.