Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exchange of 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange of women

This article should be deleted and redirected to Arranged marriage, Marriage or a similar article. Poorly written. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be a worthwhile topic, but the article does not cover it well. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never come across a guideline that prescribes deletion of a topic simply because its article doesn't cover it well. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we don't delete poorly written articles, we improve them. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. We don't need to delete an article before placing a redirect at the same location. Also, being poorly written is not a good reason for deletion per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_debates. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I understand these two concepts properly, I don't agree with a redirect either. Arranged marriages are not necessarily done to maintain a relationship between men (but exchange of women is) and Exchange of women does not imply marriage (but arranged marriages do). Anyway, a discussion about a redirect shouldn't be at WP:AFD. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Rewrites or redirects are not a matter for AFD. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ~~[PA snipped] User:Orangemarlin is [PA snipped] my contributions and putting them up for AFD.~~ This is the fifth! one in the past week. His or her comment "poorly written" is a value judgement [PA snipped]. OM should be experienced enough to know about WP:IMPERFECT andWP:STUB, which if understood and followed would help to avoid this sort of nonsense in the future --Firefly322 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address the article and not the nom while here. Trolling issue can be dealt with at another venue. MuZemike (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic/article seems notable of it's own accord and passes reliable source policies. Should this have been nominated even? It's a matter of opinion, which is what AfD is about. Lets assume good faith from User:Orangemarlin and hope that it's a coincidence regarding AfD's of articles you have worked on.--Pmedema (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's called me a troll across several places on the project, so I'm not so worried. Besides, he's been blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete--I find this troubling because really, the article is NOT well written, and what it needs is more than a rewrite: IMO, the only thing worth keeping is the title and the name Levi-Strauss. Reliable sources? If there is a reliable source, it should be the work of L-S himself, first of all, not a book that cites L-S somewhere (the first reference, and not even a page reference is given), or an article by someone else reportedly giving Henry Miller's opinion on The Great Gatsby (the second reference, which I find puzzling), or a book on biblical narrative that's not published by an academic press and seems to have received no academic reviews whatsoever (the third reference). So, an article on an important topic that is so below what I consider to be the desire Wikipedia standard, no, delete is the best option. And BTW, that 'exchange of women' is an influential topic in academia is really without meaning and adds nothing to our understanding. Moreover, the opening sentence suggests (through poor grammar) that L-S investigates not the topic but the way it is discussed as a topic in academia--and that is really very far from the truth. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this article is an attempt to POV fork. YVNP (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done some work upon the article, adding sources, content and, I hope, clarity. There are many more sources as the concept seems commonplace in sociological and anthropological scholarship. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think that Drmies's comments should be seriously considered (especially about how we wouldn't be having this discussion if the Levi Strauss name weren't attached to this), but it is a semi-important concept in structuralism and sourcing does exist. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a POVFORK pushing a particular minority worldview - and also it's gobbledygook. Recommend making it readable and merging it as a section with Arranged marriage or Marriage of convenience, in much the same way Secret sharing (anthropology) is only a section in Secrecy. Shot info (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not an arranged marriage and it's not a marriage of convenience. It's an exchange of women and is a distinct concept. At most, it should feature in those articles in the See also section. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for now. Seems like a distinct topic and is well-sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect dealt with elsewhere, in context. Fails WP:N on its own. Verbal chat 22:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it dealt with? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to its own section in Alliance theory, where it is already referenced. In the context of alliance theory this material seems valid to me, although the pop culture references tend to confuse the point. --Lockley (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not exist to make a point but to provide information about a topic. The appearance and treatment of this theme within art and literature seems a proper part of the topic. I subsequently added a section about the treatment of the matter in criminal law. Again this is not to make a point, but to provide information about a notable aspect of the topic. Since such cultural and legal aspects go beyond anthropological theorising, it seems right that we should address the topic under this heading. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2008 (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.