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. Where is Uncle G when you need him :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Lebanon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GARBAGE. I don't know how anyone could ever nominate an article like this for deletion under the usual notability guidelines, but this article has been around for 4 years (I know, time doesn't matter), and it's gotten little attention. Isn't anyone embarrassed by the quality of some of the articles here? Anyway, should be an interesting discussion with me as the target. Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced OR, wanders from the topic, incoherent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Keep per addition of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No sources to indicate notability. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Keep, there are sources now. Tone still needs some fixing, but that's more of a reason to rewrite than to delete. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very notable topic easily capable of being improved, as can be seen by Women in Jordan, Women in Israel, and many more. There is no shortage of material on the status of women in Lebanon: Human Rights Watch article OECD article Human Rights Watch report Story on violence against women Amnesty International report and more Lebanon Daily Star article and another Women's Rights Monitor UPI story Arab News story Middle East Report article Social Politics journal article... In what kind of world is this a non-notable topic? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, with no discernible rationale. Sourcing concerns addressed by Colapeninsula. As the other arguments are based on assertions alone, I have no recourse but to assert to the contrary, but I will base mine on facts. Counter-assertions: 1. the article is not OR, 2. does not stray from the topic, and 3. is not incoherent. 1. The article's content matches that of found sources, therefore it is not OR. 2. It does not stray from the topic; it at times delineates women's position relative to that of men by stating the men's position. This could be rewritten if it were necessary. 3. "Incoherent" means absolutely nothing, being utterly subjective, and is unaddressable as an argument. Anarchangel (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are available. If the nominator doesn't like the poor state of the article, there's always Wikipedia:So fix it. As it stands now, there's no reason regular editing can't turn this article around. I've made a couple minor changes to add some of the references found above into the article.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 12:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially now that it has been fixed up. Further work needed though. Shame it needed an AfD to get the work done. Bbb23, I would fully support deletion of an article based solely on a reason poor quality but probably not in this case since it is an article is needed and it was salvageable. And yes, I am embarrassed about the quality - and type - of articles around here. It is a shmae that AfDs are not used to clean out the junk. It seems that virtually all !votes are mode on policy alone. A shame really. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:45, 15 April 2012 (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.

There is too much western influenced biased political opinion presented as fact in this article. it assumes things such as the role of women in society and the tolerance of single parenthood in a society as taken from a liberal western point of view to be indisputable facts rather than the opinions of the writer. this article belongs in an opinion piece not in an encyclopedia.

Please look at the "marginalization of women" section for example, not a single citation just the author's opinion taken as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.77.24.246 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]