Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against women

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violence against women

This article is not only a stub and provides little more then a page for links, but has a few glaring other problems. Firstly, the fact that any of the violence exclusive to women, such as bride burning or sati, are covered in other articles that provide more information. Conversely, the topic of domestic violence was brought up as "predominatly suffered" by women. However, many recent studies show this to be false, and that men are more often victims of violence. With several such glaring errors, and a lack of any new and useful information other then links, is a reason why this article should simply be deleted altogether. Matt620 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into women's rights, which should by rights be expanded. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Expand I think there are some unique categories of violence against women, and certainly, this article could have a place. But it really needs to be expanded and researched properly. Per the nom's comments, there is a false sense that 'domestic violence' is suffered by women more, and it does strike me as a pretty glaring error. Implicit in expansion is correcting these points. joshbuddy, talk 07:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral You could make a very worthwhile, sourced and NPOV article on this subject matter. If done right it would work as a content fork off of women's rights. Right now, this article would need a lot of work. 205.157.110.11 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Retain. This is a category of crime that is often cited by women's groups and the article lists a number of links below that use the term. GeorgeLouis 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but add note that it needs serious reworking. I agree that it could become a worthwhile and sourced NPOV article. Give it a little time. If nobody fixes it, we can always delete it later. Once it's gone, it's gone. Travislangley 07:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, title of article excludes the possibility that the article could ever be NPOV. User:Angr 07:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I disagree. Violence can be very well defined and restrictive in what scope the article would present as Violence against women. Judging by the list presented in the current article, the scope would primarily be physical violence, which leads itself to the potential of numerous studies and news reports as sources. In the hands of a compentant editor, those sources can give way to a clinical NPOV tone. 205.157.110.11 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, real phenomenon of widespread concern and interest. Gazpacho 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced encyclopaedic article. Sure, it's a stub, but that's not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, real phenomenon. It is good to have a central point to include all the types of such violence. The article is more than a list. The nomination is notes that men are also subject to domestic violence, but they are not subject to, say clitoris removal or to foot binding. Many societies and religions have as a basic principle subjugation of and violence toward women.Edison 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per EdisonDoctor Bruno 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment looks like it'll be kept, so Violence against men will be created too. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine as long as both articles refer to studies, interested organizations. Don't do it just to make a point. Gazpacho 01:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have never created something ot make a point, your admonition fails to assume good faith. I guess I've been slimed by cold soup. While we're here, a lot could be said for the core of a Violence against men article: groups against military conscription, and the genetal integrity movement are 2 groups well documented, but it's not my cup of soup of an article, but just so we're an even-handed WP, expect someone to do it. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep Definitely encyclopedic. Borisblue 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Important topic, but this article adds nothing that isn't already covered in the other relevant articles. Paddles ^T_C 01:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. For God's sake. VivianDarkbloom 19:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've been looking for other articles that could cover this as specifically as this can, but didn't find any. Needs serious attention and expansion, though. --Thunderhead 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand to explain the significance of this phenomenon. Heimstern Läufer 04:03, 24 August 2006 (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.