Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of slavery in Iran


 * 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. I've ignored the two delete !votes. Being a bad article is an editorial issue, and not one for AfD.  Syn  ergy 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

History of slavery in Iran

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is in poor English that even to the writer must have made little sense (see the addition by an anonymous editor of the crucial word 'not' in the first line, well after the article was created, here). Sources are, well, poorly referenced and no citations whatsoever are given. Worse, even if an editor had these sources on her desk, she probably wouldn't know what to source how, since the language of the article is so muddled and confused, and conveys no authority at all. A myriad of problems here--never mind that the importance of the topic isn't asserted or explained. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —Drmies (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is a mess, irretrievably so. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly terrible article. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Unfortunately the article in its current form isn't salvageable. However, I would argue that the history of slavery in most countries is inherently notable, and if actual references can be found it could and should be recreated. A  ni  Mate  10:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a complete rewrite and the sourcing needs to be tighter, but I see no reason why this can't stay. A  ni  Mate  21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Perhaps someone knowledgeable could, with proper sources, salvage this topic, which is potentially very interesting. At its present state however it is worthless. Constantine  ✍  13:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep following copyedits, expansion & sources, it can be retained. Great work, ChildofMidnight! Constantine  ✍  09:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Weak delete I agree with Constantine on this matter we should get a good editer on the job I have asked a great user,user Laro man on this matter Secthayrabe  Ø
 * Keep I rewrote the article and added citation needed tags. The subject is notable and I found several references (such as MSN Encarta).  I will try to address the citation needed tags I added with references in coming days. But I think the article should be kept and improved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The writing is still terrible, I'm afraid - it's completely incoherent. I'd suggest getting rid of the existing content and starting again. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An administrator hitting a delete button isn't required for that. That is an action that any editor has all of the tools necessary for doing. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a topic like this is definitively notable and the other concerns are matters for cleanup. Everyking (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic is certainly notable but the article is unsalvageable in its present form. Hence deletion, but I would have no objection to if someone could write a fresh article on this subject that's reliably sourced, properly cited, informative and follows the basic rules of English grammar and spelling. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a masterful piece of work, but I can't see it as sub-cleanup standard. Everyking (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a second look at the re-edited article. It still needs work, but some of the original problems have been addressed ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed my mind. That is to say, the article at present bears really no resemblance to the original. Maybe, as Everyking says, it's not a masterful piece of work (yet), but I cannot but congratulate CoM on this effort. CoM, you have raised a flower (perhaps not yet a tulip, but still) on a dung-heap. Congrats. I recommend keeping. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I absolutely agree the article needs more work.  I contacted an "expert" in the field who has generously offered to take a look this weekend. I wouldn't rule out merging or deleting the article, but I think it deserves some time to see if it can be fixed and made worthy.  ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your sources appear to be mainly on the subject of Islam and slavery. I suggest working from some sources on the subject of Iran and slavery.  You can start with this one:
 * There are other tidbits elsewhere, such as here:
 * Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While much work remains to be done, ChildofMidnight has done an excellent job of finding a lot of citations and putting them in-line. Edward321 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While much work remains to be done, ChildofMidnight has done an excellent job of finding a lot of citations and putting them in-line. Edward321 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2008 (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.