Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim women in literature


 * 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   move to Draft:Muslim women in literature. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Muslim women in literature

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Surely a notable topic, but as it stands this article is a collection of unsourced claims ("crucial roles") and examples from a single fictional work, the stories of One Thousand and One Nights. I believe WP:STARTOVER applies. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  ///Euro Car  GT  21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  ///Euro Car  GT  21:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep While the starting over suggestion would be appropriate if this were a large article full of such unsourced claims, this seems to be a stub consisting of one unsourced claim. Starting over seems kind of redundant when the entire text could just be deleted and then rewritten with sources - at least to the level of a stub but with sources - in five minutes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying basically is deleting and starting over or blanking and starting over are almost the same thing, hence the weak keep vote. I don't think it would be a big deal either way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. In fact AfD is the only option for this article, and then we can start to create another article like it, because this one doesn't seem an islamic article. Rinfoli   { *Di§cu$ with me"# }  17:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * An islamic article? Excuse me? Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Userfy - this clearly is not yet ready for prime time, but has some potential. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy seems like a good option, I agree with Bearian. Seems to be a notable topic that can be improved upon.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2014 (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.