Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recognition of Marital Rape in Pakistani Law


 * 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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of Marital Rape in Pakistani Law

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

Long and elaborate essay, full of original research. Probably written for some other use, so possibly a copyvio. Was prodded by me, removed by creator (then prodded again, which I removed, because AfD is the appropriate next step for a contested prod.) gnfnrf (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is almost certainly a copyvio, and so the text should be removed, but I believe that the subject itself is notable enough for an article. I wonder if anyone is willing to save it. SMSpivey (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I believe the problems with this article can be fixed by editing by somebody with a reasonable knowledge of the subject (i.e., somebody who has some knowledge of Pakistani law). As such, it should be brought to the attention of the relevant wikiproject(s), rather than deleted.  I see no grounds to believe that this is a copyvio, other than that the style is not appropriate for wikipedia, which is really the only problem with the article. JulesH (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the point of copyright violation: please read the "introduction" that was in the first version of the article. Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete soapy, original research filled personal essay. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Obviously a personal essay but has a lot of research and information on a very notable subject PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article appears to come from an external source but that source is not specified. I might change this !vote if the origin of the material is clarified. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've removed the text of the article that seems to be copyvio/original research and am rewriting the article/adding sources. SMSpivey (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Nomination. The article has been fundamentally rewritten, and while the new version needs work, it isn't a clear case for deletion.  If it doesn't work out, such a discussion should be had in a new AfD, since nearly all of the commentary in this one is now obsolete. gnfnrf (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (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.