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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque[edit]

Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has no reliable secondary sources and is just connected to one person's ideology, and this ideology is not notable at all. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 103 results from google, if searched for this term:[1]. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible Keep. I've updated the article with references from CNN, BeliefNet, WNYC, The American Prospect, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, Sojourners, Center for American Progress, and Brandeis University. This is WP:SNOW now. — coelacan talk — 17:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article still needs to be expanded, discussing how the Bill of Rights was inspired, derived, arrived at, how it was posted in a mosque, what the reactions have been around the world, and so on. But that's all improvement that can easily take place. No grounds for deletion. — coelacan talk — 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as a copyright violation. Right now, this is just a reproduction of the author's work, no different than an article on a song that consisted of the name of the artist and a verbatim copy of the lyrics. If the copyvio portion was removed, there would be precious little left. - Eron ^Talk 18:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Amended to Keep following rewrite. Good job. - Eron ^Talk 16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced and documented. Not in copyright violation if properly cited and sufficiently brief. This "Bill of Rights" was obviously intended to be distributed. CuriousGiselle 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it is at all obvious how the author or rights-holder intended for this to be distributed. The Beliefnet page reproducing the Bill includes the statement "Reprinted from 'Standing Alone in Mecca' by Asra Q. Nomani with permission of HarperSanFrancisco." This suggests to me that its reproduction here, without permission, would be considered a violation by the copyright holder. A fair use case could be made, if there were any sort of commentary. But that is not the case. - Eron ^Talk 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per Eron as copyvio. With no other content in the article than the copy violation, it ought not stand. Keep - good job on the rewrite; I've no further problems with it. RGTraynor 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I have removed from the article the copyrighted text. I have no opinion on whether this subject meets our inclusion guidelines. Jkelly 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is notable enough. It needs [more] content, but that is not a reason to delete. I would be willing to work on it should the article not be deleted. Koweja 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and extend Alf photoman 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Islamic feminism. Jkelly 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it is ntoable enoguh to be discussed specifically by outside sources, not merely as part of the general topic, it's notable for our purposes by the general definition.DGG 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Asra Nomani, since the document is entirely related to her as an individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barastert (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 03:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep --CltFn 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:CltFn has significantly expanded the article. — coelacan talk — 05:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable enough not to merit a merge or a deletion. KazakhPol 05:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Coelacan's comments. -- Karl Meier 11:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Women's rights are very important. Good article and has been improved now. --Matt57 23:09, 17 December 2006 (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.