Deletion of Religious rivalry in Glasgow

Comment: Dude, asking the article to conform to  isn't too much is it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Definitely not 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: WP:V can be addressed (and by the nom if willing, there is most certainly published material on this) but  is telling
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: It is not , the user is attempting to make a  as "his" article History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football has been nominated for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POINT)

Comment: as nomination |to make a point. But while I'm here, I'll also suggest a '''move''' to Sectarianism in Glasgow.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: as this is a  nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per Alibabs. The article could use some references, but (for me) it is not , as there are over 10 different editors that had contributed in the past
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Has room to become a good article. The  arguments are confusing though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Err dudes, you do realise that people who are citing  are actually voting both to keep and to delete the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)