Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hijab protest in Azerbaijan

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hijab protest in Azerbaijan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First of all, this article written in catastrophic English, the second fact that this article goes beyond its title and covers information already mentioned in "2011 Azerbaijani protests" (thus qualifying for WP:FORK), while citing POV sources like Islamnews and Panorama.am to claim there that have been large anti-Mardanov hijab protests in Azerbaijan and outside it. NovaSkola (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue - I think the article needs to be dramatically improved, but the actual event seems notable. There is widespread coverage which establishes notability, it just needs refining and rewriting. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even according to the sources provided the event does not qualify as a protest, and much of it actually has to do with the opposition protests that took place in Baku, Azerbaijan in the spring of 2011. The hijab issue was merely one of the many demands the opposition members voiced during their march. Parishan (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It's good, but I suggest a little improvement is needed. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:37, 5 December 2011 (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.