Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chastity Houses

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 delete. --Core desat 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity Houses

No reliable or verifiable sources. An article on temporary marriage in Iran (using valid sources) would be a legitimate effort, but this article is very poor quality. Khorshid 04:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not verified. Same ref to a dubious 'proposal' is used twice, with a third ref to some statistics. Nothing says this thing actually exists. All these articles (googling) are from the same time period back in 2002. If such a thing actually had been implemented they would be something more and later. This is bogus, and likely meant for embarrassment of Iran or WP. Let's deny both potentials. Shenme 05:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as argued above. A proposal is in itself rarely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. Crotalus 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThis article has many problems, but it can be improved. The article is about a really notable issue. The article used to read like an essay but I am fixing that. There is a New York Times article about the issue which is cited in the article[1]. Shenme is definitely right when he says the article is "meant for embarrassment of Iran". Unfortunately that is the way the article was written. But I have rewrote it and it is nuetral now. This article can be fixed. --Agha Nader 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only know that the Islamic law about temporary marriages is much disputed between the different legal schools; but I can see that the article as written here is too much of a stub to be useful, and still has a nn pov. DGG 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very dubious. Note that the New York Times article cited doesn't actually say that the houses ever existed in reality. I suspect someone's pushing an agenda. BTLizard 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.