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.
I've been reviewing this article as per a discussion about this particular closure, and comments regarding how it was possibly inappropriate. I have reviewed this AfD, and find the AfD was closed correctly as a keep. The arguments I have seen below seem to revolve around the actual definition of "Wife selling" and what is included in that and not, and also geographic locations where this occurred, and sexism + WP:NPOV in this article. I won't pretend like I understand it all 100% absolutely, but it seems to me that even if a group did it or not ('not' being individuals practicing all over the place), it still has occurred from what looks like to me in several places none the less, and doesn't challenge it's notability. Whether the sources are all correct or not, I think is beyond the scope of possible discussion here and short of us getting an expert, is the best we can do. The possible sources to back up and support certain parts of the text I think is still up for discussion and should continue, but as said below we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not just delete it. I also see some points below that shockingly have some editors losing civility and I don't endorse that with this discussion, and should be averted. But the general consensus on this article, and the arguments reaching for and against, turn to be a keep. Also remember, NPOV and Notability can be fixed, and are not primary reasons to delete or turn an article to a dab. As for the original research and the synthesis of sources, again this is something that can be discussed and fixed. I am not blowing them over, they are important in themselves, but at the moment I would have to go to a library and pull out a book and look at it to tell whether this is happening, and administrators are not here to 'moderate' content per what they think a book says, the editors should be able to do this themselves. If needed this can go to Dispute resolution or another relevant noticeboard and get community comment, not just one administrator. Also as should be clearly obvious this is not an endorsement of the current article, but as an editable article that can be improved, as any other Wikipedia article should be viewed. -- DQ (t) (e)14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]