Talk:Spanish Courts for Violence against Women

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Verano, the deletion period has expired, and if you want to re-request the deletion of Spanish Courts for Violence against Women you need to give reasons. There is no "Editors Comments" section, no direct translation of newspaper articles, and its not just a list of news articles. ¿So whats the reason now? It starts to look like your working in this Court and don´t like the world to know whats going on there! :) Joking of course! Seriously though, please put your reasons, specific reasons, on the Discussion page, thanks, 77.210.123.175 (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article is very unpopular with a number of people, but I can´t agree that it should be deleted as it provides a useful overview of the courts, relevant laws, and opinions from both camps regarding this contentious issue. It seems that the desire is to erase the article rather than correct it. Rubén Mar (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(and without even one opportunity given to correct any failings! Pls look at the contents section, its not "a collection of newspaper articles!"Rubén Mar (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varano (talk • contribs) [reply]

Article improved:- 1. We´ve edited the article to remove any text directly translated from Spanish Press articles. If we missed anything please let me know. The references to press articles, government law sites, NGO sites, government statistic on the web, is included to show sources and provide further information. ¿Is that a problem, Verano? This is a very interesting law and court that currently only exists in Spain, so I think the article is of general interest. If anyone has any complaints, please, just let me know and we´ll fix it! Thank you.Rubén Mar (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any directly copied sections from Spanish press have been removed as far as I can see, nor is there an "Authors Comments" section.

¿Could we now remove the delete heading? COMMENTS PLEASE! Rubén Mar (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been explained in wp.es, This could make an interesting essay but it is not at all encyclopedic material. Please read the WP policies in your spanish discussion page and spare your time and ours. --Varano (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely helpful to understand what this court is about and there is nothing else on the internet about it. I certainly don´t think it´s just a list of newspaper articles as it provides useful references to a wide range of information from Government and non Government sources. Vivaflor (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

{{prod}} tags can be removed at any time, for any reason or for no reason. If removed, they are not to be restored. If the original prodder or any other editor continues to believe that deletion is appropriate, use the articles for deletion process. GRBerry 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

My thanks to the editors who put in the major effort to improve the article, resulting in a clear decision to keep it. The best possible outcome of the AFD process is an improved article! GRBerry 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT A BUNCH OF POLITICAL HACKS!

Well done Wikipedia! As a Spanish woman, what I think is that you´ve allowed a complete corruption of the principles of :- independence, unbiased viewpoint, and the representation of the actual facts! This revision of the article is a complete political hack, disgraceful! Como mujer y como ciudadana española ,debo decir que todo lo que he aprendido en la Universidad de Derecho ha sido cuestionado y hasta destruído tras la aprobación de una ley claramente inconstitucional e injusta, que sólo puede representar a un sector de nuestra sociedad tremendamente extremista y más preocupado en resultados electorales que en solucionar un problema que a todos nos preocupa.Actualmente, estamos castigando duramente a los hombres en general por los pecados de algunos pocos.Me preocupa que nos acerquemos peligrosamente a un estado cercano a feminismo más destructivo.VIVA LA DEMOCRACIA Y LA IGUALDAD DE DERECHOS ENTRE LOS SEXOS! I.S-G

Political-POVs from Zape82 and Verano

Zape82 has erased and minimized the issue of judicial complaints about the Court´s law´s constitutionality, that is a flagrant manipulation of the FACTS, they take no account of the rights of others, they are against the freedom of information, and consider that their own objectives and opinions as more important than any other persons or groups view. This is a disgrace, a further violation of the human right of the freedom of information, something that has been largely overcome in Spain pasts. Rubén Mar 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know my nickname is Varano, not Verano. And I can hardly be acused of biasing the article since I haven't edited a word. --Varano 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]