Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian women


 * 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, no consensus to delete. I personally think the title should be changed to Women in Iran, but I'll leave that for further discussion on the article talk page. NawlinWiki 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Iranian women

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Having grappled with this article from time to time, I have decided that the reason this article is difficult to work with is because it is not a real encyclopedia topic. Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" (notice that the definition itself lacks a source here) a wide variety of information pertaining to females from Iranian cultures, past and present, is arbitrarily selected to be added to this article. The association of these random facts under a supposed common term/phenomenon, "Iranian women," smells like a very strange form of OR by synthesis.

Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic, but if the topic itself has no certain definition, how can information be posted here as relevant? As this is not a real topic there can be no real content aside from synthesis relying upon the OR definition held by the editor. This kind of purposeless OR has no place on Wikipedia. The Behnam 08:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. At minimum we may need a name change. Shalom Hello 09:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that actual women's issues in Iran are already covered at articles with real topics such as Persian women's movement. While the latter article is also in pretty bad shape, it is possible that it has the benefit of possessing a concrete definition according to reliable sources, as any topic should have.  The Behnam 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. None of the reasons mentioned above are convincing:


 * It is difficult to write!: That's simply because you are not an expert and most of the sources are books written in Persian and they are not available online. The french version of the same article became Featured article. If you really want to write this article at the highest quality, you have to go to iran, buy books and read before writing this article.
 * Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" : There is no problem with the definition. We have already pages on women in Muslim societies and so on. Such articles address the position of women in a particular cultural sphere. Iranian culture has also a very well defined definition.
 * Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic: Well such an article has to cover the image of women in Iranian literature, art, paintings and also the contribution of ladies to the culture and society.
 * OR is totally irrelevant. The topic has been addressed by numerous writers and researchers in Iran. There are journals and circles purely working on these topics in Iran.
 * A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. Not acceptible either. Wikipedia is not a finished project. There are articles like Women in Arab societies, History of women in the United States and more to come.
 * I was also involved in writing both Iranian women and Iranian women's movement. The two articles are not equivalent. Iranian women's movement is a modern phenomenon and started in 19th century. Iran shrinked to its current size in modern time while it was bigger during Qajar era and before that. However I am not opposed to a "merge".

User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.

I vote for keep. Thanks. Sangak Talk 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*Keep - seems a perfectly valid topic although the article needs some work. Hard to say its not notable. Bigdaddy1981 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is currently no other article that addreses the issue of women in Iran in its entirety. and such topics are essential, if not critical. e.g. similaer articles Women in Japan, women in India, etc.--Zereshk 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Persian women's movement covers the issue of women in Iran. But how is the topic "essential" or "critical" even as it lacks definition and scope? As for the others you mentioned, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  The Behnam 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So tell me, how do topics like women's health in Iran, Iranian women's fashion, motherhood in Iran, Iranian women etiquette, and cultural issues of Iranian women relate to Persian women's movement? Or are they not "well defined" either?--Zereshk 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now I am not addressing the other articles as I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still a bad argument. Don't you?  The Behnam 05:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You still havent answered the question. How does Persian women's movement cover all those mentioned topics that Iranian women does (or is intended to)?--Zereshk 06:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to make recommendations about that other article here as here is not the place for it. However you bring up what I said about the article lacking definition and scope.  Without a real definition it is hard to describe the scope of the article, a.k.a. what it is "intended to" cover.  The Behnam 06:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you agree that Persian women's movement is not able to cover all issues of women in Iran, which Iranian women does by being a more general article. Lack of scope is hardly a reason for deletion. I dont buy that argument.--Zereshk 06:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't agree or disagree with anything. BTW, there is much more to my deletion than simply the "scope" aspect.  I strongly encourage you to read this page, as knowing what else has been written can help you better express your own views on the deletion debate.  Thanks.  The Behnam 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to "Women in Iran" and reorganize to be more focused on present day conditions. RandomCritic 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Iranian women's movement article covers present-day issues and there is no need to repeat them in the article for this pseudo-topic. The Behnam 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this topic is "perfectly valid." For some time I've tried to see this supposed validity but found no real encyclopedic definition for the topic "Iranian women," as I have discussed in detail here.  I feel like saying it is "perfectly valid" without responding to any of my concerns seems more like a "vote" and less like a debate.  The Behnam 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, an article that presents information about the female persons of the region that is now modern-day Iran is valuable insofar as this information differs from that of the population as a whole - regardless of sex. This article purports to show that this is indeed the case. Thus, I consider it valuable. Information that cannot be sourced or that is OR should be excised, that doesnt mean; however, that the article itself is of no value. I apologise for not stating my reasons before due to laziness - I know its annoying to have people merely assert something is notable/encyclopedic without reason in these debates and shouldve known better. Bigdaddy1981 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, but the concern I have is about the existence of "Iranian women" as an encyclopedia topic, and I've yet to see how the definition that this article relies upon is anything but OR. I even had to recently remove what seemed to me an absurdity, but who are we to dictate the definition of this supposed topic? Per WP:OR we are not supposed to "define new terms," but that is exactly what this article does, and the collection of facts attached to it is based upon this assumed definition.  The Behnam 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I can see some flaws in this article that may or may not be the ones you share. As far as I can see, the article defines Iranian women as those with an Iranian culture, speaking Farsi and living in the greater Iran region - I can see a problem arising as one can easily have women who are members of the first one or two groups that are not members of the second or third (for instance ethnically Persian women in the USA or UK who may not speak Farsi) - for that reason this definition may be a poor one. Additionally, the women described in the pre-Islamic section may well deviate from this definition. The author describes prehistoric burials without showing that these were of women of a Persian culture. I think I have to change my view to a relucatant (as I consider it would be valuable to have an article on the history of women of Persian culture) weak delete unless these problems can be fixed. Bigdaddy1981 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well. I think the definition is pretty clear. The two articles are covering "History of women in Persia/Iran". That's pretty clear. Iran is a multi-ethnic country. It size reduced over the last centuries. The word, Iran and Iranian in its modern usage only refers to nationals of current Iran. But for instance 200 years ago Iran was bigger. So we needed to explain that issue. We also needed to explain that Persian women means women of Persia (former name of Iran). The word Persian also refers to a particular ethnicity which accounts for the majority of people of Persian and Iran. But this article is not limited to those. In summary this article is the History of women in Persia/Greater Iran. The article Iranian women's movement was meant to cover the history of women in modern Iran (starting from Persian constitutional revolution). I think the definition is pretty clear. Please note that when we say German women (wome of Germany), we have to make it clear that they are not all ethnicly German. The same story is true for Turkish people and Turkey. There many Kurds who are nationals of Turkey. ... Thanks. Sangak  Talk 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not so sure that the definition you offer above is the same as that of the article which defines Iranian women by stating "{t}he term refers to women who practice Iranian culture, speak Iranian languages and live mainly throughout the Iranian cultural continent." To me this clearly excludes non-culturally Persian natives of what is now modern day Iran (the pre-Islamic portion of the article) as well as any non Farsi-speaking or non-Persian women of Iran (Arabs, Azeris etc). Perhaps the article can be repaired along the lines that you suggect above? The topic - women of Iran - is an interesting and valuable one, however, the definition used is, imo, a problem. If steps could be taken to improve the definition I think a keep would be best for the wikipedia. Bigdaddy1981 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * @Sangak: Thanks for the extensive response. I'll response to each one:
 * It is difficult to write!: That's simply because you are not an expert and most of the sources are books written in Persian and they are not available online. The french version of the same article became Featured article. If you really want to write this article at the highest quality, you have to go to iran, buy books and read before writing this article. "
 * While I don't recall requiring expertise to work on Wikipedia, I'm not really questioning the individual facts stated in the article as much as I am questioning its basis for existence. I'm sure that an editor could add even more random facts somehow related to this concept "Iranian women" using Persian sources but this does not resolve the apparent lack of encyclopedic definition for the topic.
 * Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" : There is no problem with the definition. We have already pages on women in Muslim societies and so on. Such articles address the position of women in a particular cultural sphere. Iranian culture has also a very well defined definition.
 * How isn't there a problem with the definition? Throughout all of these months we have no RS defining this term, much less doing so in a manner that gives the article scope and direction to prevent it from being a collection of random facts that editors selected to associate to the topic. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument; in fact I'm thinking about nominating some of the other non-topic articles for deletion as well.  I even thought about tacking Kurdish women to this deletion debate.
 * Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic: Well such an article has to cover the image of women in Iranian literature, art, paintings and also the contribution of ladies to the culture and society.
 * How do you determine relevance without a concrete and focused definition of the topic based upon reliable sources?
 * OR is totally irrelevant. The topic has been addressed by numerous writers and researchers in Iran. There are journals and circles purely working on these topics in Iran.
 * OR is definitely relevant. A "topic" lacking a concrete definition cannot be written about without using a definition and scope not rooted in reliable sources.  The personal perception of the topic's definition & scope is combined with a raw fact taken from a source to advance an association, but as this association itself is unsupported by RS it is OR.
 * In WP:OR, one of the examples of original research that should not be included in Wikipedia is anything that "defines new terms." The definition used in this article does not rely upon reliable sources and is essentially the opinion of an editor.  As the article's definition and scope is OR, the article is fundamentally flawed.
 * A search on Wikipedia for Chinese women, Egyptian women etc. did not turn up any articles. Not acceptible either. Wikipedia is not a finished project. There are articles like Women in Arab societies, History of women in the United States and more to come.
 * While it wasn't my point (it was Shalom's), I think it should be clarified that Shalom seemed to be suggesting a name change at the minimum. Anyway, as I've said before, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify an article's existence; I am actively considering nominating others (such as Women in Arab societies) for deletion as well.
 * I was also involved in writing both Iranian women and Iranian women's movement. The two articles are not equivalent. Iranian women's movement is a modern phenomenon and started in 19th century. Iran shrinked to its current size in modern time while it was bigger during Qajar era and before that. However I am not opposed to a "merge".
 * I don't claim that they are equivalent and I think that Iranian women's movement probably has a concrete definition somewhere that provides direction and basis for the article. And while it isn't relevant, generally empires shrink as conquered lands break away or are taken by others.  What article would you like to suggest for merge?
 * User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.
 * Again I'm not concerned about the sources for the facts (though I was back before cais-soas was blacklisted), but rather the source for the definition that should guide the entire article. And obviously I'm still not convinced that this is a real topic.  BTW, "smelling" was not meant literally :)
 * Anyway, thanks again for your extensive response as I appreciate real discussion of the article's merits (rather than simple voting). Hope to hear back from you.  The Behnam 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Behnam! Thanks for your feedback. I think your major point is about the scope of the pages. Do you see any problem with "History of women in Persia/Iran"? When we are discussing women in old times we have no choice but discussing their appreance in literature, paintings and so on. "Iranian women's movement" is also very familiar to any Iranian. The persian translation is Jonbeshe Zanan e Iran. It was initiated in 19th century by a group of women who wanted to participate in politics, to have education for women, sport for women, music for women and so on. There are now several organizations and journals persuing those projects. Perhaps Iranian women were among pioneers of women activism in central Asia and western Asia.

If there is any ambiguities, that's not in the nature of the subject. That's due to the ambiguities in the name Iran/Persia. The same problem exists when you want to talk about German nationals or Turkish nationals etc. When one says A is a Turkish parliament member, people may automatically consider him/her from Turkish ethnicity. But we know that one third of the population of Turkey are Kurds. I know that politicians do not care about terminology. But wikipedia is a democracy and for that reason we explained these issues at the begining of "Iranian woman" page. Please note that this ambiguity does not exist in Persian language where the name of the land has been always "Iran". In English language the name Iran, was not in use until 20th century.

I do think this article has the potential to become a great article in future and I do not see any reason for deletion of the article. As I mentioned above the French version has a high quality and it reached FA status in the past. There are master programs in several Iranian Universities on "Iranian women studies". So the subject is very well-established. Sangak Talk 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned about Iran/Persia ambiguities here, nor do I doubt the existence of the Iranian women's movement or its appropriateness in an encyclopedia. My problem is that this article is written based on a definition made up by editors based upon their personal ideas about what comprises the encyclopedia topic "Iranian women."  Until this problem is entirely resolved I support deletion.  And don't worry about the other stuff - I am getting tired of artificial topics elsewhere on Wikipedia too; I'm not trying to pick on Iran or something like that.  BTW Wikipedia is not a democracy though it sometimes acts like one :(  The Behnam 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are unhappy with the content, you may want to post a translation request to French wikipedia and have the FA version translated into English. Or you may want to contact an expert to step in. Or perhaps you may want to search in the web and find sources like Women's live in ancient Persia and The Women's Movement in Iran and improve the article. Alternatively, one can think of merging the two articles. I think deletion does not make sense. Sangak  Talk 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Citations to research, encyclopedic value, and the author handles the topics with objectivity.  The objection appears to be to the title.  The status of women around the world is of interest to more than 50% of the globe's population, not just to our "better half".  Mandsford 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The objection is to the complete lack of definition and scope for this article. Some others have objected to the title but I object to the article itself as fundamentally flawed per WP:OR: "It defines new terms."  The Behnam 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep" as an excellent effort at writing a NPOV article. The material is encyclopedic, and the editors can think about a better title. a good case has been made for other similar articles--saying they aren't there is not an argument against this one. DGG 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please validate the article's topic. I've raised a number of concerns about the existence of this term as a topic and have pointed out the OR basis for this article.  BTW, I've never used those other articles as a reason for this one to be deleted; I have only reminded others that the existence of those articles does not justify the existence of this article.  Per WP:OR we are not supposed to "define new terms," but that is exactly what this article is doing, and the entirety of this article relies upon this OR definition.  The Behnam 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about a phrase. Its an article about a subject. The qy. of the best name for the subject is an editing question. It should be a neutral descriptive phrase. I myself cant think of anything much more neutral than this, but perhaps somebody will when the discussion returns to the article talk p.DGG 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It claims to define a certain encyclopedia, "Iranian women", and without basis associates a variety of different facts with this supposed idea. The definition provided in the article is and has always been OR.  There may be a simple dictionary-type definition that can be accepted as obvious, such as "women from Iran," though you don't find this explicitly defined either.  But to claim that there is a detailed definition, a topic with a specific and meaningful scope of relevance, is completely unfounded, and the article is not acceptable until this foundation can be established, and this established definition can redefine the content of the article.  Right now it is just a collection of facts and pictures included because of the definition made-up in the lead or because of the personal notions of editors.  This AFD has been disappointing from a debate perspective.  So far I've mostly run into unsubstantiated claims (see the below "vote"), various distractions unrelated to my reasons for nomination (mostly along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and begging the question (such as yours - "its an article about a subject", despite the fact that the existence of "Iranian women" as an encyclopedic subject is one of the very things that I am questioning in this AFD).


 * Keep definently encyclopediac topic and material is encyclopediac. Also seems to be pretty well sourced.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I just take your word for it? Your response doesn't address any of the problems I have brought up here. Dude, this is a debate. The Behnam 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep encyclopedic article on topic rarely found in an English language encyclopedia. Serves to strengthen Wikipedia by countering systemic bias.  Promotes understanding of women's issues and contribution of women to Iranian culture in an objective manner.  One editor argued that the article has a complete lack of definition and scope, but I disagree. IMHO once the title is changed to something like "Women in Iranian Society" the scope and definition are no longer an issue.  --Chicaneo 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)  Strike through on --Chicaneo 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, and after working on the article, I now tend to agree with Sangak regarding keeping the article's name. Sangak has made very strong arguments in support of the title, in spite of many suggestions to change it.  The contents of this article are unique and do not fit in with existing articles.  Sangak's argument that the word Persian also refers to a particular ethnicity is what convinced me.  I think a good comparison would probably be Hispanic women.  Hispanic is a term that encompasses people from many nationalities while describing a commonality of Spanish ancestry. --Chicaneo 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I’m not quite sure I understand the OR argument. WP:OR refers to unpublished facts, and unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position or historical interpretation that is novel.  The article is well sourced so it obviously does not rely on unpublished facts, analysis or synthesis.  So then those who are taking the OR position must be arguing that the authors of the article are trying to push a certain POV, novel idea, or novel historical perspective.  Please clarify for me what is novel about the existence of Iranian women in Iran and their contributions to their own society?  Also, the argument that this article "defines new terms."  has really got me confused.  What new terms are defined?  Could you list them?  Surely you don‘t mean “Iranian women”.  I think that term has been around as long as there have been women in Iran.  Now I’m no expert on Iran, but I believe that would be since about 3200 B.C..  So what’s new about that?  It’s possible that  I have misunderstood these two arguments.  If so, could you please provide clarification.  Thanks.--Chicaneo 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An 'unpublished definition' is just as much OR as the other unpublished variants, and in fact could be considered more severe, as it is equivalent to "made up." The new definition is that used for the encyclopedia itself.  Have you read the lead or looked at prior versions? The concept of this the article has no sourced definition & scope and as such there cannot possibly be an encyclopedic article about it. There is no anchor for the definition of the topic, and this definition determines the material included in the rest of the article.  I don't think that most of the facts included are necessarily OR - they look good overall, though I haven't checked each of them.  I won't say that there is a specific POV pushed as the article is just a jumble of facts tacked to a page; perhaps some of them try to 'make a point' but that is aside from the point.  Perhaps the sourced information should simply be relegated/kept elsewhere instead of pooled under this artificial article topic.  BTW 3,200 BC sounds a tad too early - by about 3000 years. The concept of "Iran" before Parthian (I think) & Sassanian times remains unattested (the expected form would be *Aryanam but as the asterisk indicates, this is unattested).  The cultural ancestors discussed at Iran are listed as starting 3200 BC - perhaps the coverage there is misleading so as to portray the nation of Iran as existing that far back.  I'll think about some possible adjustments there.  The Behnam 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, prior versions are irrelevant. The AfD is to determine the fate of the article that is shown in real time.  What I hear you saying is that the intro section needs work.  So what?  Is that a reason to delete the entire article?  No. The solution is simple.  Just fix the intro to match the article.  You said the article “defines new terms”.  Again, what new terms???  Can you please list them?   Surely you don’t mean “Iranian Women”?  Now that you’ve clarified the timeline for me, that term has been around since about 200BC.  I hope the terms you list are newer than this.  --Chicaneo 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Zereshk although rename Women in Iran if that is the naming precedent for these kinds of articles. -- Joshdboz 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be quite a stretch to keep "Iran" in any case as this assumes that really ancient stuff counts as Iran. Perhaps for some nationalists this is the case but in reality the national concept of "Iran" is not attested to in Achaemenian times.  I've had to remove anything suggesting otherwise from the main article (Iran).  This is part of the vagueness.  Does the encyclopedia topic "Iranian women" include women from all Iranian groups or just the nation of Iran? How much history is considered relevant? What aspects are considered relevant? We can't just have random facts tacked onto a page.  The definition used in the article is OR.  It amazes me that despite all of these 'keep' votes nobody has even moved to help out the article to address any of these problems.  The Behnam 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you? As fas as I see, all you ever do is go around unreasonably tagging articles, deleting or decimating articles, engaging in editorial combat with everyone involved and throwing accusations at them, and reporting them to admins. Tell me one Iranian related article you have fully created and authored? Even one?--Zereshk 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take you up on your offer to help out. But since "these problems" are your problems really, it seems reasonable that you should bring them up on the talk page, if you haven't already, and then you should accept the consensus whatever that is.  --Chicaneo 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Keep RS'ed ,encyclopedic, objective and certainly noteable. Dman727 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename, it should probably be History of women in Iran so it's the same as History of women in the United States. The Persian women's movement is a specific subsection of this article. gren グレン 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Women in Iran. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Perhaps the subject definition could use some sourcing. A need for sources does not mean an article should be deleted.  I think the concept of women of Iran is a legitimate one, and valid for an article. Aleta 19:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is supposed to be more than a Wiktionary article. Perhaps in Wiktionary you can define "Iranian women" as "women from Iran" without incident (though there is no source for that definition yet), but encyclopedia articles need to have focus, definition, scope rather than just being a collection of somewhat-related facts. And throughout this debate this hasn't happened. And I doubt it will happen even after this debate closes. Do know, however, that just as Zereshk so despises, I will relentlessly remove anything inappropriate from this article. I haven't much interest in 'creating' articles for this "encyclopedia," but rather removing crap from what exists already. Maybe after the crap is removed I'll try to make a full article on my own, but right I'm not interested. Zereshk's comment bringing up the question of my authorship of articles was inappropriate anyway. Like many Iran-related articles, this one also has issues. Considering that the problem is quite fundamental (with OR defining the topic & its scope), I suspected that this isn't a real encyclopedia topic (no, don't build the strawman that I don't believe Iranian women exist or similar BS misinterpretation of my arguments), and hence felt that deletion was best. However, since I failed to communicate my case against the article persuasively, it seems that this is heading for a "Keep," so I will simply cut the crap directly from the article upon the debate's closure.

Chicaneo, thanks for making some edits to the article, but as you don't seem to think that this article has any problems with definition & scope, can you please provide sources for the lead that explicitly back up every claim? Thanks in advance. The Behnam 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge the decent content to somewhere appropriate, like the history of the Iranian women's movement. There's no reason why the women of Iran should be singled out in particular as far as I can see. The creation of articles for the women (and possibly the men?) of every country would be ridiculous. We don't have Scottish women, Spanish women, Nigerian women, Indian women, Japanese women, Russian women, Brazilian women or Australian women. The argument that other homologous subjects don't have articles is not valid generally as a reason for deletion but here it seems to apply.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above, specially Chicaneo. Where's the OR? What are the new terms being defined? 'Iranian women'? Article may need more work, but it definitely is encyclopedic. Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you define the ideas in the lead and those ideas used in directing the article's development? So far there have been so many 'keep' votes and yet nobody has actually tried to address the fundamental issue here. All of the facts used in the page are loosely associated by pertaining to "Iranian women," but the definition of that term in the encyclopedic sense is not clear (and apparently nonexistent).  Maybe, just maybe, you can try wiktionary for "Iranian women" but to present it as a unified subject suitable for an encyclopedia is preposterous.  There just isn't anything to define what is relevant other than loose association to the undefined "Iranian women," and this is against WP:NOT (no loosely associated collections).  The Behnam 22:47, 9 July 2007 (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.