Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationships in Arab tradition

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships in Arab tradition[edit]

This is a short essay and original research. While it may be true and may be interesting, it requires development into a fully cited article or even a small stub, or should go pending re-creation at some point in the future. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is currently in poor shape. Probably should severely trim and stubify, but topic is encyclopedic. LK (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- This is just orignal research of a topic already covered in the Arabic wedding article. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not really about "relationships in Arab tradition", but about in- and out-group marriage in the Arab tradition. The information should be discussed in a larger article on Arabic family traditions. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic is not independently encyclopedic - anything sourced, which by the time of this writing is nil - can be merged to Endogamy or Exogamy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's the article on reading Garfield in Antartic tradition? More importantly, it's an unsourced essay, and a quick search of academic literature shows that it is not a topic of any kind. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable and important topic. It's just that this article isn't the right one to cover it. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's like claiming it is a notable topic, because It's actually about Islamic Marriage... it's silly, that's not what the article mentions, and making Presumptuous compressions of the definition doesn't change the fact that actual definition and title are portraying a non-notable, and infact, non-existant generalised topic. All information on any topic acatually hidden in this short piece of meaningless text is long since available in more appropriate places, so I stand by my original comments without question. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2009 (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.