Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender roles in Islam

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gender roles in Islam

Almost entirely original research. The sources cited do not match the claims made. Any actual encyclopedic information on this subject can already be found on Women in Islam, which I would suggest this re-direct to. Irishpunktom\^talk 11:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Admittedly as the guy who did most of the work I have an interest. But there is no original research. The sources do match the claims made. Much of the information here is not found on Women in Islam although a merger of parts is in the works. This call is totally premature given the work going on to fix the problems. A peer review would probably be the more sensible option. I urge people to read the article(s) for themselves. Lao Wai 12:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, after reading the article's talk page I'm detecting a whiff of bad faith here, to be honest. The article DOES need work, admittedly, and I'd support deletion if it can't be improved jamesgibbon 12:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding your suggestion, I have been trying to work with this, I mean compare what the opening paragraph was like when I began work on it. Note too how Lao Wai constantly removes my request for citations, and constantly includes the allusion that all women of Medina were all Ansari (Helpers of Muhamad) - That is obviously untrue, but he keeps adding it anyway. [1], [2], [3]. Note also how The Source he uses to justify his assertion "Obviously this is a vision of Heaven that is more likely to appeal to men. Eternally virgin dark-eyed Houris are unlikely to appeal to many women" says nothing of the sort, in fact is says almost the opposite ("The life of women in Jannah will be as pleasant and happy as the life of men. Allah is not partial to any gender. He created both of them and He will take care of both of them according to their needs and desires. Let us all work to achieve the Jannah and then, in sha’ Allah, we will find there what will satisfy all of us fully."). Anyway, besides that, anything of any merit is already dealt with in Women in Islam, a more stable and more Accurate and more NPOV piece.--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Look this is not the place for a slanging match over this. I flatly deny saying what you have just said I said. If you want to discuss this in a civilised manner I suggest we take it to the Talk Page where it belongs. Again I urge anyone who cares to read the relevant pages. Lao Wai 15:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We do have separate articles for women and gender roles in Western culture, so why not Islam? Having NPOV problems is definitely not a sufficient reason to go to VfD. Sdedeo 14:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Women in Islam --Grcampbell 16:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 'gender' is not the same thing as 'women'. Trollderella 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 'gender' is not the same thing as 'women'. Homophobia and sexism related to gender roles is a big problem in muslim societies. Notable topic. Klonimus 22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Grcampbell. Women and gender aren't the same thing, but women are, you know, a gender. Information about women in Islam = information about one of Islam's gender roles. Penelope D 17:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but this article should be about both gender roles in Islam, not about women in Islam. Trollderella 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Which part of this article would suggest would not have a place in women in Islam?--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete without merge. This vote may not be taken as any form of 'keep'. The scant references in the article (one of them is a link to Google!!) do not persuade me that this is not-original research and here is not the place for such. Get good references in there, and I'll reconsider. Otherwise, it needs to go, per WP:NOR. If this can be rewritten as a proper article, it can of course stay. -Splash 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your vote means. You cannot redirect without keeping the content, unless you mean delete then recreate a redirect? Trollderella 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you can! You can simply blank a page and turn it into a redirect. That complies with the GFDL. The only thing you can't do is delete after copy-paste merging. -Splash 23:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, or better, Merge Women in Islam into it. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Trollderella. Did I just say that? --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - with Women in Islam, or merge Women In Islam into it. Daemon8666 22:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jachin 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Probably merge (for now) - hypotheticaly 'women in' and 'gender roles in' are two distinct subjects - but these are not currently two distinct articles. A clear demarkation is required, and some heavy NPOVing. I'd suggest merging and then dividing in some other way - perhaps an article on the Qu'ran material and one on Islam today. Do not 'keep' as stands. --Doc (?) 23:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Article is SERIOUSLY flawed, but the topic is legit. Woman in Islam does not equate gender roles in Islam. --Striver 17:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You guys blow, like a hurricane. roll offle. Gold Stur 21:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs work, but what doesn't Roodog2k 00:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There is definitly scope for a serious article in the topic. Women in Islam and Gender roles in Islam are clearly two separate topics. Bandraoi 14:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The topic is great but I think whole article needs thorough revision in terms of contents as well as style. In current form, I beleive it should be deleted.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.