Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Listing at WP:DELSORT under Sexuality and gender (FWDS)
Cirt (talk | contribs)
commented.
Line 11: Line 11:
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law|list of Law-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law|list of Law-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender|list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender|list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep'''. Educational and encyclopedic. Good introduction to sub articles referenced in links in the article. Nice use of structure and organization to frame key topic points. Could use expansion with additional secondary sources, particularly with an emphasis on scholarly and academic source coverage. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:34, 26 February 2015

Violence against men

Violence against men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been deleted twice already and renamed once, so I think it's worth discussing whether or not we want to keep this latest incarnation. My personal opinion is that the article is merely synthesis of various statistics, and does not reflect a coherent topic of coverage sufficiently distinct from violence. In theory, you could create any number of articles of the type "Violence against X", for example, Violence against 20–30 year olds, but in most cases, the scope is not going to be sufficiently distinct from violence. The reason we have a Violence against women article is because there is a large body of theory and research devoted to this as a distinct phenomenon. Same with Child abuse. In other words, there are many reliable sources devoted exclusively to those subjects and the subjects are distinct encyclopedic topics. As the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by and against men, there is no need for a separate article devoted to that (just as there is no need for articles devoted to Violence against adults or Violence during war). Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The article that was previously redirected is here [1]. That article was mostly about domestic violence and it was redirected to Domestic violence against men. We have articles like Violence against women in Guatemala and Domestic violence in Peru with many more for each individual country. But not for Men? Really? The article that was redirected was not the same article. Please look at content. The article is sourced with research articles published in peer reviewed journals, so this is clearly a topic of interest for research scientists.USchick (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Educational and encyclopedic. Good introduction to sub articles referenced in links in the article. Nice use of structure and organization to frame key topic points. Could use expansion with additional secondary sources, particularly with an emphasis on scholarly and academic source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]