Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Shabazz

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. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Shabazz

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

Not a notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of coverage in these books and others found by the Google Books link spoon-fed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is he notable for? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources that I linked you'll find out. It's explained very clearly how the subject gained "fame and infamy". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is not "what is he notable for," but rather "is he notable?" GNews, GScholar and Google strongly suggest that he is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book results and his role in converting Cassius Clay to Islam seem to satisfy [[WP:BIO], The article needs some rewriting because it smacks of autobiography or writing from personal knowledge rather than from secondary sources, and it is a bit positive POV. Edison (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ginsengbomb and Edison. One may not care for this person and still see clearly that he's notable. Adding additional sources and fixing point of view should have been done through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (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.