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.
There is nothing wrong with this extremely informative article. The only bad thing with this article is that it is continuously being attacked by anti-Islamic editors and their sock puppets. When it comes to sources, you don't need very much of them on this article because IAW website(under the supervision of British government) has relevant information.Lefnic (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, and doesn't appear to have done anything particularly remarkable. However, I believe that Lefnic is correct when he says there is a sockpuppet problem. Will look into it further. — RichardBB10:33, 18 October 2013 (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.