Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Courts for Violence against 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The result was speedy keep per criteria 1, nomination withdrawn and no other delete opinions present. GRBerry 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Courts for Violence against Women
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-encyclopedic collection of newspaper articles, including extensive copyright violations (direct translation of copyrighted articles from the spanish media) and a final section named "editors comment" (now erased) which confirms that this is nothing else than an essay. It has been deleted 6 times from WP.es Varano (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nominator had placed a prod tag, and then put it back after it was removed. Oops.  The article creator has been blocked 24 hours for use of a sockpuppet; which use may have been triggered by the nominator's error in putting the prod tag back.  The article creator won't be able to improve or comment for that period.  GRBerry 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Specialized courts are usually notable, in the same way that government departments are. Consider the "gun courts" or "drug courts" of other jurisdictions. --Eastmain (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the courts are notable. This AfD proposal is not on the base of unotability but that this is not an encyclopedic article but a personal essay supported on newspaper clippings. --Varano (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Newspapers, in most cases, are given the benefit of the doubt as reliable sources, though some are spotty. The question here becomes, is the subject notable enough to warrant cleaning up the article and removing POV and Copyvio? If the article is to be kept for cleanup, and then sits for six months before being deleted at another AfD, then I'd say we should just delete it now. But, if someone plans to go through non-english sources and come up with an neutral article, even if a stub, then I'd say it should be kept. Also, a 24 hour ban on the author shouldn't hurt too badly, given that this debate should ideally run for 5 days or longer. But it's still a concern. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a worthy topic which has a fairly detailed, moderately sourced article which appears to have been written by someone with a strong interest in the topic. As a consequence, they inserted some of their personal commentary into the article.  Perhaps they were not fully aware of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV?  In any case, there doesn't seem to be too much issue of whether or not this is an encyclopedic topic, only if this can be made into a policy-conforming article.  I decided to take a first stab at it by nuking some sections which were either commentary or belonged on Wikisource or Wikiquote.  There is still a lot of work to make this conform stylistically, but it's really not that hard  to just delete the stuff that doesn't belong.  &mdash;dgies tc 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I have wikified the article and eliminated all of the POV and unrelated parts of the article (ok changed it completely)--Zape82 (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Changed my "vote" after Zape82 and Dgies good job (note anyhow that the article has little in common with the original version). --Varano (talk) 11:14, 29 November 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.