Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep - per an overwhelming consensus. FCYTravis 09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay rights in Iraq

I believe that this article should be deleted. It is just pushing the author/authoress' point of view, and doesn't give much information, but to be fair I'll put it to a vote. Chooserr 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I disagree with the previous poster. The article has a neutral point of view and factual information, as well as a good list of references. I see no reason to delete it. -- Ritchy 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now, although the article might need renaming (e.g. to LGBT rights in Iraq). Out of curiosity: what are the pov issues you are talking about, Chooserr? Aecis praatpaal 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Deletion is only an option if the article is intrinsically and irreparably pov. I don't think that is the case with this article. So if there are any pov issues, put a npov tag on the article and fix the problems or use the article's talk page. Aecis praatpaal 09:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Changing my vote (again), this time to speedy keep. Nomination is a violation of WP:POINT. Aecis praatpaal 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - factually pointless information. npov? article smacks of western cultural bias. those disgusting iraqis, staying over there with their own culture and traditions! why cant they be decadent like us! Zzzzz 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So what you're saying is only Western countries should have gay rights articles? Remember, this is a vote to delete, not a vote to fix. Ashibaka tock 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is plenty of precedent - we have many other articles in Category:Gay rights by country, including a number of non-Western countries. FreplySpang (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article is wild full of POV, totally inapropriate, attack pice against america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.13 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, but take out some POV statements. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is absolutely nothing POV about the concept of an article on LGBT rights in Iraq. If there are POV problems, fix them. FCYTravis 00:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointles POV "article"

User:Jcuk 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable topic on which verifiable information exists. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I find it hard to understand the nomination or the delete votes. This is a fairly good sized article with a dozen external links that has received quite a few contributions from different editors for half a year. It's a dry analysis of Iraqi law and recent history as it affects gay rights. It certainly doesn't attack the United States. If it does have POV problems (which I don't see), then the proper procedure is to give it an NPOV flag and leave comments on the talk page or better yet to correct the text. The nominator attempted none of these remedies. There is no valid basis for deletion. Durova 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Speedy keep per User:Rob. Bad faith nomination. Now I know why several deletionists seem not to have read the article. Durova 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Yep. I daresay it's a borderline speedy keep. FCYTravis 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm at a loss to see what POV issues to fix. The only specific examples in this discussion come from people who appear not to have read the article. It attacks no country or culture. It does not advocate homosexuality. Category:Gay rights by country has 35 other entries. I say this with caution since such things should not be suggested lightly, but perhaps the intersection of gay + Iraq pushes buttons for some people. Durova 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - and whoever thinks this article is POV should say why, specifically, on the talk page, so we can begin to fix those POV problems. Deleting is not the solution. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete needs to go--64.12.116.12 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Clean it up, don't wipe it. That's not how you solve problems. Ashibaka tock 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per precedent. Jasmol 01:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fix any problems. -- JJay 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fix NPOV problems. No matter how little is left after NPOV, its better than nothing. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 01:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This article, as said by Durova above, is a well researched and rather comprehensive one (IMHO) covering history, legal issues, etc. The POV issues that some users seem to see should be discussed on its talk page and eventually fixed, not simply speedily deleted. That does not solve problems and as far as I was informed, was not the way Wikipedia operated. You don't see the George Bush or Palestinian articles being speedied, and those are, again IMHO, more controversial and potentially POV than this one. Another problem seems to be User:64.12.116.11, who has in the past couple of minutes added a NPOV tag, a nonsense tag, a totally disputed tag, an unwanted tag, and finally deleted the article (which has now been reverted). This user has a history of vandalism and has struck again here, evidently, which I think is a different issue than the other discussions. Sputnikcccp 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an informative article worthy of inclusion to Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral Fix POV and I am ok with it. JG of Borg 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Detailed article with useful information. No reason has been given for deletion- the only one stated is POV, which is something corrected by editing, not deletion. This could easily be a Speedy Keep. -- Jake 02:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, per User:Durova.--SarekOfVulcan 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Are we going to have to have articles about this on every country in the world? Dwain 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Why shouldn't we? We have articles on every freaking elementary school in the world now. The way a country treats its gay and lesbian citizens is hardly non-notable. FCYTravis 03:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Dwain 03:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow, I see you have a pretty strong POV. "Homosexuals are non-notable"? Is that why their rights are a major political issue around the world? "Irrelevant minority?" Way to show your biases. FCYTravis 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Surely people have a legitimate interest in knowing how to obey the law? Many countries have criminal codes on this subject, but the laws differ. Durova 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, we are going to have articles about this on every country in the world. And why shouldn't we? Homosexuality is notable, just like crime, cuisine, culture and religion. And the legal dealings with homosexuality in different countries is definitely encyclopedic. I won't get involved in a religious discussion with you (although I have a feeling that I think most of what you feel is utter bullshit), but you really shouldn't let your pov get in the way of your contributions to this encyclopedia. We are dealing with the world as it is here, not with the world as it perhaps should be. Aecis praatpaal 14:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete 100% POV nonsense, get it out of here--152.163.100.12 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no problems that can't be corrected by a good edit. Cynicism addict 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per User:Cynicism addict. Fix the POV. Billbrock 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. There was a serious academic book on the subject in China (Passions of the Cut Sleeve), cited in Homosexuality_in_China. Billbrock 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
P.P.S. By analogy to the above citation, I would suggest a redirect to Homosexuality_in_Iraq; hard to discuss the legal aspects w/o discussing the culture. On second thought, no, per User:Durova. Billbrock 04:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
P.P.P.S. Check out Gay_rights_by_country and note some of the amusing omissions. Billbrock 04:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • May need editing, but there's enough good material in there for me to be a firm keep. —Simetrical (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Edit or tag the article for NPOV, but don't delete. Chanlord 03:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I hope that whoever counts the votes can see that none of the people who voted to delete have any valid reason for doing so. Logophile 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry, they aren't votes anyway. This is a discussion, not a poll. There's clearly no consensus to delete, so it won't be deleted. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Even though I think this article needs improvement, there's decidedly no reason whatsoever to delete it. --ParkerHiggins 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given that this AfD is obviously going to fail, I would strongly suggest to the nominator that a withdrawal would be in order. Unless you like watching people run up the vote. FCYTravis 09:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - bizarre how much response it generated though, isn't it? I guess the whole idea of gay Iraqis really touches on a nerve of some kind... who knew? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - Not that bizarre. This is a clearly encyclopedic topic for which there is absolutely no logical reason to delete. The nominator went around posting this AfD on talk pages of people he figured would support him. Seems like he got more than he bargained for. I liked the one delete voter's logic that "homosexuals are non-notable." FCYTravis 09:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Right, FCYTravis, it's not about the content of the article. I personally don't care at all about the topic. To me it is about the idea of somebody nominating a valid encyclopedia article with no justifiable reason.
        • Comment - I guess I was referring to the delete votes. Those are what I find bizarre. Nobody's explained what the so-called "POV issue" is yet. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, gay rights in various countries are an important topic. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Informative. the wub "?!" 10:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep legitimate, interesting, and useful article. PatGallacher 12:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. I find this[1][2] attempt at organizing along religious lines unacceptable (specifically asking Catholics to delete an article for being about gays), and think it shows an invalid basis for the nomination. Anyways, this article is clearly on a signficant topic at a high level (national) with plenty of signficant information to cover (with great room for improvement) --Rob 12:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Those edits do not stand on their own. They are part of what seems to be structured and organized behaviour to fix votes, and with it wikipedia content, along the lines of religious beliefs. See for instance user:Pitchka's talk page spamming concerning the CfD for Category:Pro-life celebrities and Category:Pro-choice celebrities [3]. In the space of a few hours, he scoured just about every user category where he thought he could possibly find supporters. He spammed no less than 57 users, asking them to vote his way. I'm not sure if this qualifies as meatpuppetry, but it sure reeks of vote fixing. Aecis praatpaal 19:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • They also seem to be on a mission to eradicate the BCE/CE dating system from wikipedia. 1 Aecis praatpaal 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments Dwain 04:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

        • I think you've just illustrated everyone's point in that statement there. Please keep in mind that everyone does not share you opinion and homosexuality and the rights and opinions of various countries on homosexuality are important and notable. And please don't use Wikipedia to push your own agenda. Chanlord 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A noteworthy topic that could easily be fixed up and NPOV-ified by A Wikipedian with knwoledge of the subject at a later date. - Wezzo 14:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems verifiable and real, but desperately in need of cleanup. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, good article and lots of precedent. (At this point in the vote I'm me-tooing, but any attempt to religiously censor Wikipedia overcomes my usual laziness). --Last Malthusian 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --dcabrilo 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- it contains absolutely no objectionable material in accord with Wikipedia's policy. Sebastian Prospero 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to delete at all, although article could use improvement. Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. POV and other "cleanup" problems have no bearing on an article's nomination unless it is inherent in the subject. I don't find this the case here. Ifnord 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and POV-ectomy. AfD is not an appropriate way to handle any perceived POV issues. --Bletch 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Now that I've fully reviewed the article, I really don't see any POV issues. Where's the beef? --Bletch 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Read the whole discussion here and follow the links. Durova 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and let it be improved --Petros471 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Someone with more motivation may want to consider an RFC or similar opening of discussion of this group trying to silence gay-rights issues and censor the BCE/CE system from Wikipedia. This smells like the beginnings of a more serious problem. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep just remove the POV bit. p_b1999 (Talk|Contribution) 00:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A topic worthy of Wikipedia, regardless of how poorly it may be drafted at present. Jtmichcock 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and incidentally, the feminine form of "author" is "author." Nandesuka 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, NaconKantari 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and censure nominator for abuse of AfD process for POV-pushing. --FOo 03:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This is typical you don't like something or someone so they must be punished. He had every right to nominate this article for deletion. Just the title alone is Point of View. Dwain 04:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is talking of censure simply because of nomination of an article we wish kept. It's the *expressed* motive of the deletion that's the problem, and the means of promoting the deletion. We must assume good faith, but the nominator has made clear through their own words and actions; that they're seeking the deletion of articles based on religious/moral grounds, and are trying to gather a coalition of like-minded voters along sectarian lines to accomplish this. That's what's truly unacceptable here. As an anology, if somebody nominated a Christian rights in Iraq article because they personally opposed Christianity, and solicited votes principally from people they thought shared their religious views (based on religious affiliation), then that would also be unacceptable. We don't want any religious block to start dictating content at Wikipedia. If you don't like the article title, then please go to the talk page, and suggest an alternate name, and try and gain a consensus for a better one. --Rob 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How are "Gay Rights" a POV? What about Women's Rights? Is that POV? Just because some people don't believe people should have rights, doesn't make the term Gay Rights POV? Chanlord 05:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
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.