Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 28
 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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 and rename. After looking through the reliable sources in the article and the various reliable sources mentioned in this AfD discussion, it seems clear that the subject covered by such sources is 'domestic violence against men', not general 'violence against men'. Pretty much everything else is covered under the military history context. Although several of the Delete comments have suggested that this subject can be adequately covered under the domestic violence article, the Violence against men section there is already overly long and could benefit from switching to summary style (which would be politically impossible without a stand-alone article to link to). It also looks like 'domestic violence against men' is capable of passing WP:GNG as its own subject, unlike 'violence against men'. My only hesitation is that domestic violence against men is likely to become a POV fork. However, I do think it is possible to write an NPOV article on the subject. I'm willing to give it a chance and see how it goes. If the article proves impossible to maintain in an NPOV state, I would recommend renominating for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Violence against men[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
AfDs for this article:
- Articles for deletion/Violence against men
- Articles for deletion/Violence against men (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Violence against men (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Violence against men (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Violence against men and women
- Violence against men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm on the fence about this one. I could conceive of sufficient improvement to this article such that it would be worth keeping, but even then, WP:TNT may be more appropriate, as very little to none of the current content would belong in a quality treatment of the subject. As it stands, the article is a big, messy bit of synthesis. The wicker man seems totally irrelevant. The military bits are misguided—that's violence committed against people because they're soldiers, not because they're men. The summary of domestic abuse is probably the only thing that really belongs here. Is that enough? I'm not sure. What do you think? BDD (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indented line The wicker man bit does seem a tad bit odd in it's current state; perhaps we could phase it into a section on historical perspective and/or historical examples of violence against men, describing cultural/historical trends or examples of violence against men. As for the military section, the particular bit on treatment of soldiers in war because they're men does not quite fit, but perhaps there are other instances relevant to war where violence is committed uniquely/differently against men (for example, when Homer describes the men being killed/slaughtered and the women and children being sold into slavery instead). Kiaomi (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that this article has been deleted twice before. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If you delete an article about violence against men, you must also delete articles of violence against women, violence against children, violence against animals, violence against aliens, or whatever other nonsense exists. Lump all articles about violence into Violence, or delete all of them. Deleting one sends mixed messages, such as, violence against men is irrelevant or unimportant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.84.4 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 60.36.84.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete there could be an article Domestic violence against men, however lumping together all kinds of violence just because of the gender of the victim is OR, and in this case creates a not very useful article. BigJim707 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Apologies for not assuming good faith, but it does seem like it has been created as a rebuttal to feminism that just throws together a lot of things in which men have allegedly suffered for being men (even if their gender is in reality incidental). A lot of it is, as mentioned by previous contributions, totally irrelevant - "Misuse of domestic laws against men"? This POV-pushing is suggested by comments like "Acid throwing, men are victims of these attacks too, about 20% of victims are male", and "see also" links to masculism as well as even less relevant topics like prison rape. Might be salvageable via total rewriting, but I'd need proof that violence of men is a distinct topic covered in its own right by reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Reading the Violence Against Women page it seems that the only reason to remove this page is that it seems to offend some people who dont either agree that violence against men is possible or it is an attempt to censor an opposing viewpoint. I do agree that it needs a rewrite but there are quite a few articles and studies that show that IPV intimate partner violence is not just perpetrated against women by men but also by women. To simply delete something because you dont happen to agree with it sets a very bad precedent. Sabotage6 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — Sabotage6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete with no bias against recreation if someone manages to pull together sufficient sources to write a non-synthetic page on the subject. Unsalvageably synthetic as it stands. (And the only parts that really seem to belong in the article make it seem a lot like a POVFORK.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep statistics clearly show that domestic violence against men exists nearly at the rate it does against women, and for many other types of violence men are the vast majority of the victims. There are other things I could point out, but that would violate WP:SOAPBOX. Zerbu 03:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I look forward to seeing the figures to support the claim that "statistics clearly show that domestic violence against men exists nearly at the rate it does against women" when you post them at the Domestic violence against men article. Carptrash (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to the info already on the page there're plenty of additional studies proving men are at higher rates of receiving mental & emotional as well as physical abuse in relationships in the US and much of Europe. There's also been some fantastic reporting recently in the British press about rape as a weapon of war against men that should be added. This is not a narrow topic, and it's very much unrecognized not due to lack of research & information but due to a lack of representation.SLEPhoto (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The information presented here doesn't seem to be factually inaccurate and while some of the focus of the writing could be improved that doesn't seem to merit deletion. As to comment on the statement "That happens to soldiers not men" overlooks the entire point of mentioning the military. Jirekianu 20:26, 1 March 2013 Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jirekianu (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Keep The article is a bit of a mess in terms of word choice, proofreading, and grammar; however, that can be fixed in time. The article presents a valid and not well known issue that, according to some mentioned sources, has a potentially large presence in today's world. Another possibility is the article be merged with the Violence Against Women article to create some sort of a violence based on gender article, or similar article on violence. Kiaomi (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The article does not raise issues which are not factually inaccurate. Indeed, it's understood gender based violence can occur to either sex. In truth, the fact that it seems to occur with more rarity against men elevates the academic interest in documenting specific examples. While, I. It's current form, it appears to be incomplete and poorly written, so are most nascent articles on Wikipedia and therefore a component of the process of maturation any page undergoes. Over time, with expert curation, this article may be very interesting to read. That can't happen, of course, it it gets deleted. Jeremiah (talk·cont) 05:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep- the article needs a lot of work, but it is definitely not unsalvageable. Reyk YO! 05:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- The only non-synthetic content as far as I can see is the paragraph under domestic violence. That paragraph was cherrypicked from our main domestic violence article, which makes this article seem even more like a POVFORK than it did to me at first. (I say cherrypicked because it presents Fiebert's research without including a mention of the incredible major criticisms of it.) A redirect to domestic violence would be way better than this as a standalone article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sexual Violence Against Men in Armed Conflict
- Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: A neglected research area
- Unrecognized Victims: Sexual Violence Against Men in Conflict Settings Under International Law
- Domestic violence against men
- These came from a 5 minute search of Google Scholar; admittedly some are behind paywalls, but I think they demonstrate that "violence against men" is considered a real subject in scholarly literature. Reyk YO! 09:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep- I think the necessary answer to a poor article on a controversial subject is to improve the article, rather than delete it. Indeed the controversy around the issue (not the controversy around the deletion) suggests against deletion. An article like this should include statistics, historical accounts, representative anecdotes, legislation and court decisions, societal attitudes, representation in media, and so forth. Alternatively, if this article doesn't stand alone, then it shouldn't be deleted until some capable users agree to integrate the concepts that would have belonged here into other articles related to gender-based violence. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:Unsigned IP -->
- This AfD was linked from the /r/mensrights/ subreddit in numerous threads, this being one of them. I would expect that that is where many of the new keep votes are coming from. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're surprised that a group dedicated to raising awareness about domestic violence against men (among other things) is for keeping an article about violence against men? Charwinger21 (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - The article needs some work, but the subject isn't exactly non-notable. Charwinger21 (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously topic has received significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Obviously this is a difficult and expansive topic given such a large group of persons (men), and a widespread human behaviour (violence), and so it is understandable that nascent efforts such as the present article fall short of the desired standards. However, for the same reasons above this is an important article to maintain. Its flaws are not critical, and it is possible to improve upon what has been started. Syamil (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - The Spanish article es:Violencia contra el varón is plenty of references and cover very nice this topic. Notable. emijrp (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Needs totally re-writing, but as essential an article as Violence against Women. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If there is Violence against Women, there should also be Violence against Men. But the article needs significant improvement.
- Strong delete "Violence against men" is not a generic term like "violence against women" that is used by international organizations. Any discussion of the issue can be included in violence/domestic violence related articles.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ([(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=541738871) diff])
- Keep If we get rid of this, then let's get rid of Violence against Women also. It's only fair. You can't have one without the other. 96.252.60.139 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is a growing number of female to male abuse cases. To delete this page would be sexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.195.83 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 24.142.195.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. There is a review article in a "real journal" on the topic. There are also some general articles on domestic violence with significant coverage of male versus female injuries, self-reporting, etc.: This one has 87 citations and this has 560 citations. For these last two, just from the title, it is clear that male injuries are a significant part of the reports and that it is of interest to look at that subcategory of injuries.
The article should be constrained to domestic violence against men (and given that title). It's of interest in at least a "man bites dog" way. Cut the general violence stuff (Wicker man and Julius Ceasar). To be well written the article should have at least some discussion of differences/similarities in domestic violence against women. (It could just be a section within domestic violence, but it's obviously expandable to full article status.) [OK...just looked at that section which is actually better than what we have here. Probably the way to go is to shorten that section in the domestic violence article and then have a full article on domestic violence against men as a spin out.]
BTW, I agree that the article seems like some sort of "men's rights" thingie (which is even lamer than the "take back the night" marches of college students). And it's poorly written. But what should be addressed here is notability, not slant. There are lots of crappy, slanted or "crappy and slanted" articles on the Wiki.
TCO (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Many people who are commenting on the fact that domestic violence against men should be discussed are missing the point: the problem is the title of this article - "violence against women" is a recognized generic term used by the UN and most international organizations; it is specifically defined by the UN. There is a Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and son on, there is nothing similar in regard to "violence against men". You may believe it's unfair, but WP goes with what sources say. Domestic violence against men can and is discussed in the general domestic violence article.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ([(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=541738871) diff])
- Keep. It can be edited. One could argue that almost no violence against men is because they're men but because they're, e.g., husbands, but in almost all cultures to be a husband or to be a military servicemember usually requires being male. I don't know whether religious sacrifices were genderally specific (I imagine many were and religion may be an area in which explicit requirements for maleness may be found) but one sacrifical custom in a South American Indian society reputedly was of sports winners and in many cultures, for some sports, they would almost always be male (this sentence would be wrongful synthesis but is stated as a clue to research). In the U.S., by far most people awaiting criminal capital punishment are male, suggesting that maleness is almost necessary to doing the activities that get one sentenced to death. Anti-husband violence by wives occurs often enough and sourceably enough to be notable but is generally less violent and less frequent than anti-wife violence by husbands, also sourceable, and the difference is a feminist issue, also sourceable. The article should not be narrowed and retitled; instead, if content grows enough, an article on domestic violence against men can be spun off and this article then edited to summarize that one. I've seen print media on violence against men and have no doubt of reliable sources' existence. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment- I understand what you're saying, but to have an article titled "violence against men" you'll have to provide sources to show that this term is actually recognized and used internationally, that it is a mainstream term acknowledged globally, like the term "violence against women". The types of violence that you describe and do happen can be discussed in specific articles dealing with these issues.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)— 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ([(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=541738871) diff])
- "*Domestic violence against men
- On that note: I fail to see how NOR requires worldwide/widespread recognition to the degree you suggest. Kyleshome (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -You are completely misunderstanding. The term "violence against men", by itself, it not a globally, stand-alone, recognized term like "violence against women" is. It is used in various sources to deal with specific forms of violence and specific situations, but is not an international generic term.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ([(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=541738871) diff])
- Comment- I understand what you're saying, but to have an article titled "violence against men" you'll have to provide sources to show that this term is actually recognized and used internationally, that it is a mainstream term acknowledged globally, like the term "violence against women". The types of violence that you describe and do happen can be discussed in specific articles dealing with these issues.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)— 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ([(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=541738871) diff])
- Can you provide any evidence that the general public can't recognize what "violence against men" is? The meaning seems fairly straightforward. --Squirtlekin (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -This isn't about the general public recognizing what it is; it is about whether the term "violence against men" is recognized by reliable sources, globally as a generic term. And the discussion wasn't about whether specific forms of violence that happen to men should or should not be discussed in various articles (they should obviously), but whether an article with this title is appropriate. An article "violence against ...." should be created only if there is a consensus in reliable sources that such forms of violence are recognized internationally (by international bodies) as a specific type of violation. eg Violence against LGBT people. A specific type of violation that the respective group experiences because of the position it has occupied/occupies in society.19:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ([(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=541738871) diff])
- Comment Sole use of a concept or existence of a concept, brings with it as its necessary condition of existence negative concepts to such a concept, eg. Concepts which are used in negative definition of such a concept. What the thing is not. The extent of the definition or negative definition is established by understandability of defined concept, how many "it is..." or "it is not..." is necessary for us to distinguish it from other concepts. This happens most visibly with most opposite concepts, those which are most necessary for definition, understanding and since one of the basic categories of lived world is Woman/man – it. Than the reasonability of existence of a disputed term and its content is encompassed in the existence of opposite term, eg. violence against woman. The generic use of aforementioned concept comes hand in hand with generic existence of the other, although perhaps not so visible. Thus Non-genericty should not be a valid argument for its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.192.107 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -This isn't about the general public recognizing what it is; it is about whether the term "violence against men" is recognized by reliable sources, globally as a generic term. And the discussion wasn't about whether specific forms of violence that happen to men should or should not be discussed in various articles (they should obviously), but whether an article with this title is appropriate. An article "violence against ...." should be created only if there is a consensus in reliable sources that such forms of violence are recognized internationally (by international bodies) as a specific type of violation. eg Violence against LGBT people. A specific type of violation that the respective group experiences because of the position it has occupied/occupies in society.19:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ([(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=541738871) diff])
- Can you provide any evidence that the general public can't recognize what "violence against men" is? The meaning seems fairly straightforward. --Squirtlekin (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This article was, as BDD notes in the nomination, full of irrelevant material, and a coatrack for "men's rights" material. I've removed all of that, and provided descriptions for some of the relevant citations that were already present. I think it now has the potential to be developed into a useful article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)- Keep Just because an entry is controversial or discusses concepts which conflict with other editor's pet paradigms and agendas, does not mean it should be tossed down the memory hole. A cursory search for the term shows numerous reliable sources and that the term is in common usage. - CompliantDrone (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- AfD !votes, to have any weight, must include policy based rationales. Inappropriately attacking another editor is not a policy based rationale. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is a major topic in gender studies and the article has numerous reliable sources. Just because the article is a stub at the moment does not mean it cannot be edited and become a well written article. The deletion tag should be removed since Hex has repaired the article to a state that does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. Element9. TALK 21:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Changed from" Keep" to TOSS OUT. Somewhere someone said something like "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." For many at wikipedia this means constantly monitoring articles such as this one from the one-article-editors, the-unregistered-editors the-agenda-pushers, and the other fringe types drawn to this and related topics. We keep up our relentless chant of "good sources" and "no opinions" and "you can't reference blogs" and they keep up their endless inane, sophomoric parroting of whomever they have chosen to repeat without having thought about or really understood much of anything. So me must (opinion) allow them their articles and subject those to the same stringent requirements that we a;ready labour under in our editing. Remember, we are the good guys, keep the article, bookmark it on your watch list and I'll see you around. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am now convinced, that, yes, the topic as "Violence against men" is too broad to be useful. It would start with a "History of war" for 37 paragraphs and go from there to sports and even to domestic violence and would be useless. I now realize that if I am not prepared to write the article myself it should go because I see no one here who is really going to do a credible job of it. Thanks G-Man for getting me to rethink my position. Carptrash (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure there could be a good article here, but no one wants to write one. This article, for as long as it has existed, has been a POVFORK. If all POVFORK content is removed, nothing is left that isn't already better covered in other articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Most references to it as a subject talk about specific issues and thus it should be focused on gender-specific issues. Women have been actively engaged in violent conflicts and blood sports for as long as men, though typically on a lesser scale as far as being participants in them, so the idea that "violence against men" is too broad a topic could be just as easily applied to "violence against women" if you put it that way.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is plenty notable as a unique phenomenon with different cultural implications. There are many avenues this article could explore that it doesn't, so this is definitely a subject worthy of its own article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a notable subject. Deletion would violate WP:NPOV. --AutisticCatnip (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Delete with bias against recreation This has already been deleted twice. It reeks of a political agenda. The subject is so broad as to be meaningless. It is not a term of art in any extant body of scholarship. further, the points raised in the article, particularly those frequently cited by other keep-voters (cf. Violence against women) are all covered in other articles (such as Domestic violence, which largely avoids specifying genders). -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 11:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: The following four comments moved from the talk page for the article. where they had been placed by mistake. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The page is a good starting point to enhance the discussion of domestic violence directed towards males. IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) studies from numerous groups to include the CDC, NIH as well mental health journals cite numerous topics that should allow both sides of an issue to be presented equally. With the current reauthorization of VAWA along with its many detractors because of funding and its lack of controls towards violence against men, domestic violence in LBGT relationships and other controversies make it necessary. I have listed a few sources that would allow for expansion and if it is determined would not be against taking over admin of this page.
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3100370/
- http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020:
- ABSTRACT: Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships,women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).
- Conclusions. The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence.
- Sabotage6 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Domestic abuse against men is a reality and deleting this page will only ensure that it remains unrecognized by the international community
- As this study from the University indicates the disparity between genders in terms of spousal abuse is not as wide as previously believed
- As well as other governmental studies also indicate a notable rate of female on male violence
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroin friday (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Each of the issues brought up in this article would be better suited to the main articles on those subjects. For example, there is already a discussion of domestic violence against men in the domestic violence article. Combining subsections of various articles into a single article based on gender is not only odd, but reeks of a political agenda, and is therefore lacking in NPOV. Contributors should instead address these issues within the context of each article, e.g., sexual slavery, domestic violence, prison sentencing differences, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetrock (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Any reasons to delete this page based on political agenda are equally valid reasons to delete the Violence against women page. By deleting this page and allowing the female equivalent to stand, this is itself an example of political agenda and lack of NPOV. The fate of this page should be tied to the female page, not separated. 60.241.169.85 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a legitimate issue and a sourced article.--SelfQ (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. So the feminists and gender theorists are now invading wikipedia to spew their vile venom? Feminists are such revolting creatures. There is not a single legitimate reason to delete this article. Strong keep. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- What the fuck kind of argument is that?!? Seriously, if that's the best you can offer, please keep the hell away from AfD — you're not helping either your "cause" or this discussion... Carrite (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- And yet, there are plenty of feminist responses that are solely about pushing the feminist cause, so why aren't you shooting them down? Zerbu 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- What the fuck kind of argument is that?!? Seriously, if that's the best you can offer, please keep the hell away from AfD — you're not helping either your "cause" or this discussion... Carrite (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:POVFORK. Clumsy attempt to synthesize some connection between Domestic_violence_against_men#Violence_against_men and Gendercide#Androcide.--Staberinde (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - This article's existence only serves to detract from women who are victims of violence. This would do better as a subsection of Violence Against Women rather than its own article. Men as victims of violence is not an issue, as it is human nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.92.233 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 March 2013
- This comment was placed on the talk page for this AfD. --BDD (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. So this is a politically motivated delete request? Paukkumaissi70 (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - previously recreated POV-fork. Largely WP:OR. Just delete and merge the bits into the other relevant articles, of which there are plenty - Alison ❤ 07:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes and while we're at it let's delete the violence against women article. Nothing but feminist propaganda under the guise of 'academic research'. YvelinesFrance (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Please take your trolling elsewhere. Thanks.-- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 12:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC) nonproductive, sorry. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a legitimate article of a legitimate phenomenon which a proper encyclopedia is supposed to cover in an encyclopedic fashion. Paukkumaissi70 (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Stubify: present article is crap and should be deleted per Alison. Probably a notable topic though, per (some of) the sources presented above, so I don't see the point in deletion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and rename Domestic violence against men (currently a redirect to Domestic violence), which is clearly an encyclopedic topic. This page should be conceived of as a subpage of Domestic violence. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is an important topic that belongs on Wikipedia. The page as is needs some work but can act as stub from which to start from, and draw interested editors to.CSDarrow (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Regardless of the condition of the article text, there is a topic here to describe to our readers. Of course it should be free of synthesis and bias. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This isn't a majority vote guys, remember that. Regardless of our attempts to make a relevant article with real sources, this will most likely get canned in the political favor of the feminists bias towards men... I mean, look what you're doing to us RIGHT NOW. We can't talk about domestic violence, but you can? Should we just sit idly by while they silence us? Does domestic violence matter? Is it even real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.1.9 (talk)
- Keep as the topic itself is notable and is part of a series of topics on violence, for example Violence against women. Mar4d (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. It is, in my opinion, clearly a notable topic. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - assuming it does not become a coatrack for mysogyny. Many of the sources are reliable, and can demonstrate notability through significant coverage. I think the article could be strenthened with more information on same-sex domestic violance. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you think that Domestic violence would be the best place for that information? -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Per The Devil's Advocate and the article's notability & viability based on the sources provided.Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. J04n(talk page) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club[edit]
- Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable football club. No evidence provided and none found that club meets WP:GNG / WP:ORG Hack (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- What more evidence is needed? The page has already been deleted before, but this was due to copyright material, which I had authorised use of anyway. I have this time re-worded the article in my own words to avoid this issue, and have provided references where required. Please let me know if i can revive the old page and fix it to ensure it is adequate per Wikipedia terms and conditions, as this is a legitimate page and club. User:Nickathans 28 February 2013 23:52 Melbourne Time
Weak KeepI gather that this club is in a non-league platform and is in the pyramid which can be promoted all the way to the top (A-League). I am however not sure if the club is registered for the FFA Cup know. Being as we have non-league teams in England that are in the pyramid system I am inclined to keep the article. However the page needs a lot of work, references(citations). Govvy (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The club can be promoted to the Victorian Premier League, the second level of soccer in Australia. Promotion to A-League is not possible. The FFA Cup is purely theoretically at this point. Below the top tier of the state leagues, reliable source coverage is next to zero. Hack (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NCLUB and WP:ORG. just because it could be promoted 2 levels to notable level is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok here is what i can tell you. The club does exist and is a league club! It is directly affiliated with Football Federation Victoria which is the governing body of football in Victoria, Australia. You can find that the club does exist on the official FFV club directory at FFV Club Directory. The club is competing in Victorian State League Division 5 in the EAST league. The club has the ability to be promoted and relegated through the pyramid of Victorian football, and can reach the Victorian Premier League with continuous promotions. The FFA Cup has not been established yet, so no teams are competing. There is also an FFV State Knockout Cup for FFV clubs to compete in, however this is a voluntary competition, and Old Trinity Grammarians SC did not elect to participate this season. Please summarise for me what the page needs in order to meet Wikipedia standards. User:Nickathans 01 March 2013 10:53 Melbourne Time
- You need to prove that the club has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The criteria is listed at WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nick, as I wrote on your talk page, it needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Redirect / selective Merge to Trinity Grammar School (Victoria) (which needs more sources itself) if sources can't be found for this article. The-Pope (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- The club has a registered website at www.otgsc.com.au. The clubs also pays affiliation fees to the FFV every year. Results posted at sporting pulse will prove its existence not only this year, but since 2002. All records have been kept, the club has over 50 playing members. Please identify what information you still require. Tom Frederico (non registered user)
- Hey The-Pope (talk), here is the link Sporting Pulse - FFV State League 5 East. You being Australian and based around aussie rules would be aware of Sporting Pulse, as all AFL clubs are registered here as well. Nickathans —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please find here match report by opposition club Middle Park http://mpfc.com.au/firsts/round-14-v-old-trinity-grammarians/ and a video taken by local football reporter Football Chaos http://footballchaos.com/index.php/videos/2010/115-pl-rd-20-seaford-united-v-old-trinity-grammarians. The club is also listed on the Trinity Grammar School Kew's Official website http://www.trinity.vic.edu.au/trinity-community/old-trinity-grammarians/otg-sporting-clubs/
- Please also refer to the following PDF file for further reporting on the club. This is an official independant Publication by Trinity Grammar School (See pages 8 onwards) The Trinity Grammarian - Vol 27 Issue No.2 July 2012
- comment Well if the club can't go from the VPL to the A-League in a pyramid system then I am not sure how you cover it too pass non-league status, the only valid path is GNG. You will need to add a references section to the article, please look at Man United as an example to go by, notes, footnotes, citations. As all the link you provided here are better suited in the article. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that WP:ORG is met, and it is unlikely that this non-professional team is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of amateur sporting teams. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nick-D that's a poor response. Wikipedia has literally thousands of amateur sporting teams and associations listed. Here are examples of other Victorian sporting clubs listed on Wikipedia which are part of the same soccer pyramid. These articles seem to be lacking a lot of vital referencing and citations, and are not as organised or referenced as Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club, and they don't seem to be under any review for deletion. Please explain: Parkmore Soccer Club, Ringwood City, Williamstown SC, Essendon Royals, Collingwood City F.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickathans (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like Old Trinity Grammarians have more than satisfied WP:ORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickathans (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of any independent reliable sources covering the club in detail, the only sources I can find confirm it exists and give details of results, nothing covering the history that would lead you to conclude it is wiki-notable. I have removed a lot of the WP:FANCRUFT in the article. LGA talkedits 08:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry nick, until there is substantive media / books written about the club, it does not meet the inclusion criteria. --99of9 (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- ^ http://www.islamicpluralism.org/1918/indian-muslims-increasing-resistance-to-wahhabi
- ^ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-18/india/30296208_1_indian-muslims-wahabis-deobandis
- ^ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-18/india/30296208_1_indian-muslims-wahabis-deobandis
- ^ http://www.theafricareport.com/news-analysis/sufism-and-salafism-malis-deep-religious-divide.html
- ^ http://www.islamopediaonline.org/country-profile/egypt/salafists/salafi-violence-against-sufis
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-sufi-salafi-egypt-religion
- ^ http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=28330
- ^ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/31/libya-stop-attacks-sufi-sites
- ^ http://libyasos.blogspot.in/2012/08/democracy-arrives-in-libya-sufi.html
- ^ http://tribune.com.pk/story/428052/unesco-urges-end-to-attacks-on-libyan-sufi-mosques-graves/
- ^ http://www.arabnews.com/world/sufi-scholar-5-others-killed-dagestan-suicide-bomb-attack
- ^ http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120830/175517955.html
- ^ http://bakerinstitute.org/news/boko-haram
- ^ https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:AaxmERHfCZwJ:globalsecuritystudies.com/Gourley%2520Boko%2520Haram.pdf+boko+haram+salafi&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiEQ26zMUfUWWmkr37Cm5bXirwnfcap3lmOP0nDzNrbnTrgaGF5BkX5pDguEEX9p4d8QjM8BXWZ0R3mdkzk-Nc_7fdOC9OFT8AmxLxSIAJucCv7ouemHceG_HeHz4oMsprszoFC&sig=AHIEtbRlvwwKf9eCgxiuc1RnzAoqMKSabA
- ^ http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/the-rise-of-boko-haram-in-nigeria
- ^ http://www.ovida-afrido.org/fr/actualites-diplomatiques/interviews-a-opinions/280-opinion-salafi-jihadist-terrorist-threat-in-western-sahel-preparing-for-the-worst.html