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 No consensus - Keep. Non admin closure. Jorvik 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list doesn't satisfy any of the three purposes for lists dictated by WP:LIST#Purpose of lists.
Information - A pretty much indiscriminate list of Iranian women (deemed appropriate for the list by who-knows-what measure) is the very opposite of a valuable resource for information.
Navigation - As it is not like a "See also" section, this list serves no navigational purpose.
Development - Most of these people have articles, and any red links without backup sources were removed (by me) per WP:LIST reference requirements. If this is a "articles needed" redlink list it should be located elsewhere, but it clearly is not such a list and so serves no good developmental goal. The Behnam 05:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Don't! Category would be utter, utter WP:OCAT. Bulldog123 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we don't have List of Scottish women, List of French women, List of Canadian women or List of Russian women - so why should we have this? Reads like trivia. I also think for the same reasons, Iranian Women should go as well, probably, but that AfD's more complex.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 09:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have to start somewhere with new series ? whu not a list of notable canadian women ? Let's create it !Taprobanus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, Iranian women looks to be more about the history and status of women in Iran. That's a far more viable article than this one. --Hemlock Martinis 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while it does have redlinks they could be placed somewhere else and not under a list of women. We don't need that. Punkmorten 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per List of Japanese actresses, List of Indian film actresses, List of female television actors and a like. The list of Iranian women contains sections for scientists, artists, politicians etc. The notability of them is either mentioned in their wikipedia page or right in front of the entry. For example the scientists listed are either directors/heads of departments or they got a prize or had notable inventions. Sina Kardar 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize you just mentioned all lists of actresses. Bulldog123 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the point is ? Taprobanus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this particular case I agree 100% with Sina Kardar, it shows what each woman is famous for. Callelinea 16:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Women have enough problems on their hands right now and are not waiting to see their Wikipedia page brought down! I agree with one of the individuals hereabove that the list is rather indiscriminate (not to mention that in its present form it also looks rather chaotic), however I do not believe that deletion of this page is appropriate at this juncture. I propose that those who feel strongly about this page should make a concerted effort and improve its quality, and thus prevent its untimely deletion. If for no other purpose, this list just displays the considerable achievements of the Iranian women over the course of years and will undoubtedly serve as a moral support to other women who may be despairing of the possibility of their own progress in their respective societies. On a personal note, it makes me immeasurably proud seeing such a long list of Iranian women everytime that I happen to vist this page. --BF 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made efforts from time to time, including yesterday. It is quite difficult to manage and the criteria used for inclusions is practically nonexistent. It is indeed a very arbitrary & subjective list and it doesn't appear to benefit the encyclopedia at all. The Behnam 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no criteria listed, so it fails WP:LIST#Criteria for inclusion in lists. BehnamFarid, it is not "their" Wikipedia page, nor are articles kept because they provide "moral support" or to make you "proud". Clarityfiend 18:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - this seems to be a "pride" page. Good point. There may (currently) be other such pages on Wikipedia but if they do not meet the list criteria then they should also be deleted. The Behnam 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria now is Notable Taprobanus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how you have come up with "their" and "pride page". Of course, it seems likely that having looked at my name and seen the name of a man, you have immediately concluded that I must have appealed for "them" on "their bahalf". Nothing is farther from truth. I appealed on behalf of all men and women. And incidentally, the pride I spoke of was not a superflous pride; I spoke of a pride based on real achievements by real people.
Now back to the point: I do realise how difficult it must be to maintain the page, however deeply believe that the final outcome will far outweigh the effort in terms of its value. To come out of the present impasse, I propose the following four-step solution:
(1) As regards criteria, I suggest that someone find out the usernames of those who have been responsible for introducing at least one name to the present page (perhaps someone with sufficiently high administrative rights on Wikipedia will be able to do all this quite effortlessly); for convenience, I refer to these individuals as "nominators" and to those whose names are in the present list as "candidates"; I call this first step as "call for nomination".
(2) The "nominators" should be asked formally to nominate their "candidate" (or "candidates" in the event that someone has introduced more than one name to the extant list) by sending back a brief account (no more than, say, several hundered words) in which they set out their reason or reasons for considering their nominees as deserving.
(3) In this step, a "commitee of wise women and men", consisting of some experts (perhaps from the outside world) and some official members of some women's groups, should vet the "nominees" by going through the "testimonials" and propose a final list for inclusion in Wikipedia.
(4) The names of the unsuccesful candidates or those candidates whose original nominators have failed to respond to the "call" should not be deleted; rather these names should be kept in a special section (not in the most prominent part of the page) with a heading such as "under consideration"; the readers may be invited to "nominate" from the list or from outside the list. In general, I am not in favour of blotting out people's names, which appears to me to be too dramatic an act and very probably morally objectionable (I except the names of those individuals who clearly cannot have a place in the list).
I believe that the above procedure, by its various democratic components, is the fairest way of producing a balanced list of women with real achievements. Some Wikipedia people who might know people from the worlds of literature, arts and sciences may privately seek advice regarding suitability of certain "candidates". In practice, one may just write e-mails to people whom one trusts as being in the know (in these worlds of Literature, etc.) and ask for their advice.
Why am I so keen on a list? It is always good to have a list, such as table of contents in the case of a book. The view provided by a list conveys some information and insight that separate biographies without a central list are not capable of providing. I thank you for your attention. Kind regards, --BF 20:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I do appreciate the effort you put into your idea, wikipedia is not a democracy. And by implementing your idea, the whole project would suffer because it would no longer be a place where 'anyone can edit.' the_undertowtalk 21:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the point of putting to vote whether the page should be maintained? Why can't we let the page die a natural death? why should we delete it? My above proposal takes full account of the principle that `anyone can edit'. My understanding is that some people feel that at present no one actually knows which of the names correspond to women with real achievements, as some of the names may have been included frivolously. --BF 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In step 3, you have a committee putting together a final list. Since the wiki is ever-changing, this final list would prevent users outside of your oligarchy from contributing. This isn't a vote on maintenance, it's a discussion on whether to keep or not. Maintenance is up to the community. A natural death is sort of saying that the article should be kept because it isn't disturbing anything. And it may not be, but this AfD is more about whether the article fits current guidelines for inclusion. the_undertowtalk 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I voted earlier that the page be maintained, and I still stand by that. Incidentally, I did not propose an oligarchy, althoughh it may appear so. The fact of real life is that sometimes something has to be done and that something has to be done by someone or by a group of individuals, whatever one calles them; one cannot wait, as in that case nothing will happen. If there are no "oligarchs", then nothing will change and we are here just talking the talk. The problem is simple: there are some people who think or believe that the present list is defective. If this is indeed the case, then someone or some group of people must take the initiative and solve the problem. An alternative is to do nothing, but then why are we here discussing. Another alternative is to delete the page, but that to my best judgement looks like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Moreover, as I said earlier, I very much question whether deleting this page is morally right. --BF 03:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you have very different ideas what Wikipedia should be used for. It is not a platform to promote what is good, right or moral (which would cause all sorts of problems, since editors have their own, often clashing, definitions of these concepts). It is an encyclopedia, one that strives to be neutral and has specific criteria for what should be included. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Clarityfiend 05:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put matters in a moral framework because everybody works within one (even those whose actions we might not approve of). Similarly, you, or anybody else for that matter, are viewing my proposal from the standpoint of your own moral framework. The two frameworks need not necessarily coincide. As for the present issue, I do not believe that I am particularly moralistic; I am simply astonished that some people have come up with the proposal that this particular page, from all pages, should be deleted. I personally have found this page very useful and at times uplifting. If someone has questions concerning the real credentials of a particular woman whose name appears on the present list, it is up to that person at least to leave a note on the talk page of the person who has inserted the name here, requesting that person to indicate in a particular page and in the space of one or two sentences the achievements of the woman at issue and why this woman should be named in this list. To be frank with all, I somehow associate deletion of this page, or an arbitrary deletion of a particular name because the person who deletes happens not to know that particular woman, as a king of pogrom of women on the cyberspace. This is my last message on this page, as I believe that I have already written enough. --BF 14:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I get that Iranian women are probably way less "accepted" in society and certain occupations than men but having this list is asserting some type of comment on their position in these occupation. That boils down to original research implications. Bulldog123 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really?! Do you have any statistics ? Sina Kardar 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is not a directory for Iranian women. The only thing these items have in common are that they're Iranian and they're women. Pretty loose inclusion criteria and delete per WP:NOTCorpx 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list would be endless--SefringleTalk 02:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a directory, and the title at least carries undesirable implications.
Strong keep I change thetitle to List of notable Iranian women and also please read WP:LISTTaprobanus 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Please read WP:LIST"? That isn't an argument for 'keep'. I and others have read and cited specific parts of WP:LIST in the deletion - this list doesn't meet the criteria set there and at WP:NOT. The Behnam 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the list does not use footnotes substantially for each of its entries by the close of this AfD, consider my position Delete with areasoning being a failure to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability as set out in WP:LIST. -- Jreferee(Talk) 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons mentioned above by BF and Sina Kardar. Dfitzgerald 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which reasons? To "serve as a moral support to other women"? Do you have any response to WP:LIST & WP:NOT based arguments made by those in favor of deletion? You know, we are supposed to argue from those, not from a desire to provide "moral support"... The Behnam 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Behnam, you are guilty of quoting me out of context; this is unforgivable, in particular given the fact that in my second comment on this page, I qualified my earlier words; further, I gave several reasons and if you would have cared to read me as I intended to be read, perhaps you would not have been tempted to take refuge to such cheap measure as misquoting me. Pointing the guilty finger to others, I must confess that I am myself guilty of breaking my earlier promise not to write in this page any longer. Needless to say, my view has been and remains: Keep, even Stong keep. --BF 05:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very informative to have a list like this available. A lot of the names included already have Wikipedia articles so they are probably notable. No reason to delete, just as valid as any other list.Hajji Piruz 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of notable Iranian women. Restrict all entries to names of Iranian women with articles on wikipedia. Wikipedia needs more indexing, and this lists serves well. --SmokeyJoe 03:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already did it, does it make your vote then to keep ? Taprobanus 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep. With all entries being notable, the list is not an indiscriminate collection, and will not be endless. Iranian is a notable grouping. Women is not unconnected intersection, the division of people by gender is a standard practice. As others have noted, regarding WP:LIST, the nominator is wrong on all of his three points, and regardless of WP:LIST, such lists are valuable and useful to readers and should be kept. There should be more of them. --SmokeyJoe 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I'm "wrong on all of his three points" because a bunch of people vote "keep" based upon WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments? The Behnam 02:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong because I say the list is useful for information (no, its not indiscriminate), navigation (what better way to peruse the subject) and development (we should seek to include all notable Iranian women in wikipedia). --SmokeyJoe 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. On item 1: It actually does offer lots of information, and much sought information, just as articles like List of female electronic musicians, List of female state governors in the United States, or List of female bodybuilders do. I dont know of any other page on the web that gives you information on who Iranian women are, and the spectrum of what they do, at one glance in one place. On item 2: A list is by default made to serve as a navigational portal. The difference with a category is that we can add text to the page as e.g. Women in the Australian Senate does, and that the list can be multi-directional, contrary to say List of female mystics. On item 3, it does have a "developmental goal", because blue links are added every day. What other "developmental goal" can a list have anyway, besides expanding? Like someone said above, you dont throw out the baby with the water. You FIX articles, instead of merely deleting them entirely (unless you have another goal by continuously putting up Iran related pages for deletion).--Zereshk 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep What seems to be the problem?? - As for a directory -no its not - butwikipedia has thousands of similar lists. Why not merge into List of Iranians?? - I would suggest this. As for it not benefiting the encyclopedia -I disagree I find it useful as it it is needly structured as brief details are given. Many other feminist lists exist so why the objection?. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs 15:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC regarded as a reason to delete an article.--Zereshk 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, WP:LIST is, and responses to WP:LIST probably shouldn't be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since the latter is a bad argument, you know? The Behnam 22:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think many users may be interested in reading some articles about prominant Iranian women. Arash the Archer 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per the reasoning of Zereshk, although my personal opinion is more along the lines of Arash the Archer. To wit, the article is of informational value and not indiscriminate, and it would be considered of value by Wikipedia readers. Quoting rules is well and good, but at the same time, the ultimate test of an article should be, "is it something that provides useful, notable and encyclopedic information for a Wikipedia reader who requires information in the subject?" If the subject is notable, externally verifiable, non-copyrighted and encyclopedic, I think someone would need a very good reason to delete, and I haven't seen that reason yet above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:33, 15 July 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.