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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus on this article's notability, or whether it is synthesized information. Both sides present strong arguments, but at the end of the day I don't feel that the community has a chance of currently determining which outweighs the other. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against men[edit]

AfDs for this article:
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]
An article that consists entirely of synthesis cannot be encyclopedic in Wikipedia's sense of the word. It might be informative for you, but the sources do not discuss violence against men as defined in the article ("violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men"). They discuss male rape, war violence, etc. without saying that men hurt other men because the victims are men. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That definition wasn't included in the article when Cirt !voted. The original definition in the lead section was violence directed primarily or exclusively at male persons, which is essentially the same definition that appears in Violence against women. Someone re-worded the definition. It might conceivably be changed again before the end of this AfD, and it is entirely permissable to !vote on the basis that it should be. James500 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please cite the "weird misogyny" you're referring to? I'm not seeing it on that talk page, and most of the discussion appears to be many years old anyway. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain how the Feminism Wikiproject is relevent to this? Because I can't follow your argument at all. Haminoon (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed my statement, believe it was perfectly clear, and that it conveyed what I wanted to convey. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Marteau (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced either article has to be confined to violence done to men or women because they are respectively male or female. The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines violence against women as including both violence that affects women because they are women and violence that affects women disproportionately (emphasis added). So, by that logic, presumably violence against men includes violence that affects men disproportionately, whether or not it is done because they are men. Moreover, I am not convinced that either article should not respectively include all violence that affects persons of the respective gender, since that is the respective literal meaning of both expressions. James500 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum Henderson (talk • contribs) — Calum Henderson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Umm, you're really losing me with that train of thought. The question here isn't what you think about feminism, the question is whether this topic is encyclopedic and notable under GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the above an ad-hominem attack? 208.53.116.168 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't pick and choose which comments to ignore based on your own personal bias. We're all users of Wikipedia and all have an equal say, regardless of our backgrounds. None of these comments should be removed or ignored. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, is it really your argument here that, when considering the status of an article about hardships experienced by men, the opinions of activists who specifically advocate for the rights of men should be ignored, because of their advocacy? But feminist points of view should not be subject to the same treatment? I am not an MRA and have no idea what "board" you have in mind, but I don't understand why anyone would call for those views to be summarily dismissed. If you suspect WP:CANVASsing, that's another matter, but one that could do with some evidence.
Per the template header on the edit form: All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. It is explicitly not policy to "remove or ignore" comments here, although the closer should indeed be aware that this is not a vote. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Kaldari - I'm an infrequent chemistry editor who recently decided it was worth an account, not a men's-rights (or anyone's-rights) editor. I've responded to this proposal in the same way as I would respond to someone attempting to delete the Violence against women article because it's no different from violence in general. This is a joke. Jay Vogler (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume that to be true, I fail to see why comments by some editors should be deemed worthless just because they subscribe to a movement opposing your ideology. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. --386-DX (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this has also been posted on 8chan's Gamergate board. This just went from bad to worse. --Bikemaster9 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the post timers, it's quite likely that it was posted over there by you. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, feel free to shoot the messenger... I just thought everyone should be aware that this is being WP:Canvassed by misogynists with an exe to grind. --Bikemaster9 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an archived snapshot of the thread (disable Javascript, web.archive.org is getting stupid these days; alternatively view archive(dot)today/HXrY8). Just like Wikipedia, this site runs on UTC, and this thread was created at 03/01/15 (Sun) 04:09:37 by someone with an ID (which is actually an IP address hash) of 0be51b. Throughout the thread, 0be51b only makes five posts, and at sporadic time intervals.

Are you telling me that you "accidentally stumbled" across such a post on a niche website which struggles to rank on Alexa, less than one hour after the thread was created, and then spent the time to create an SPA account at 04:58 1 March 2015, to report on the travesty at 05:10 1 March 2015? Keep in mind that as of present (March 2, 1:00PM UTC+11), Googlebot has yet to trawl the page (the site's robots.txt does allow search engine trawling) which means that the page does not show up in a google search. In addition, at 245 posts per hour, we're talking about a pretty fast board here, which raises doubts on an "accidental" discovery. In other words, you yourself would have been a patron of the site prior to "finding" the thread.

Furthermore, do a CTRL+F for the ID "0be51b", and notice how exactly 6 minutes after your post here on Wikipedia, the thread creator makes a WP:BATTLEGROUND-baiting post in reference to it (despite being largely inactive for the prior hour)? In addition, when your shenanigans are called out by another user, the thread creator writes at 06:35:33, quote, "FUCK YOU MRA!" (post No.420205).

You created that thread, with the intention of affecting the outcome of this AfD discussion. By pointing out the thread (keep in mind that few people in the thread are even agreeing with the thread poster, and have even been encouraging others NOT to participate), it seems like an attempt by you to convince participants of this discussion that there is a state of emergency. In other words, this was a false flag operation from the very beginning. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is fruitless arguing with me about this, unless you take me to be stupid. Any experienced Wikipedia editor who can recognize inappropriate WP:Canvassing knows that inappropriate WP:Canvassing has gone on in this case. For example, the inappropriate WP:Canvassing noted in this discussion, where men's rights editors tried to get me sanctioned. And in cases like these, it is common sense to notify the relevant WikiProjects or pages (or specific editors like Sonicyouth86 and Binksternet) that can, or will try to, do something about it. You know, balance things out. Much like SarekOfVulcan helped to balance things out when he closed this silly retaliation WP:AfD. And anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions knows what it has to do with men's rights topics, especially when editors involved with the Gamergate controversy article are voting "Keep" in this discussion. So, yes, at WP:Med, I noted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions. Do find an editor who is not stupid if you want to debate. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and editors should not overlook this WP:Canvassing admission. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least bit productive. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Single Purpose Accounts here are obvious, and any good closer would notice that and weigh what they have to say appropriately. You did more than "alert" the Gender Gap Task Force to it, you invited them here to "weigh in". That was more than "balance things out" as you phrase it. Presumably, your action will result in established editors taking you up on your invitation. Inviting participation is fine, but when the invitation is selective, as yours was, it becomes canvassing which is what you have engaged in. Two wrongs do not "balance" anything out, and combatting canvassing by canvassing is completely inappropriate and a violation of the guidelines. Combat canvassing by exposing it, not by engaging in it. Marteau (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The inappropriate WP:Canvassing goes deeper in this case, since it's not just a matter of obvious WP:Single purpose accounts weighing in. And there was nothing inappropriate about my WP:Canvassing; I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, which is watched by feminists, men's rights editors, pro and anti-Gamergate editors (among other types of editors), and I notified WP:Med. Completely appropriate WP:Canvassing, as is clear by the WP:Canvassing guideline; it's a common misconception that all WP:Canvassing is disallowed. Stating "Surely, everyone (or almost everyone) here will be interested in weighing in on this fourth Violence against men deletion discussion.", as I did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, is not inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Neither is noting WP:Canvassing, as I did at WP:Med. Save your lessons on Wikipedia ways for someone who does not understand them. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate the snark, and I do not intend to "debate" you, but to call your behaviour into question. I don't understand why you apparently think your canvassing is appropriate, but that of others is not. I also don't understand how you figure that men's rights editors tried to get [you] sanctioned - I see a single editor complaining about harassment on your part, and then someone else jumping in with a link to off-site discussion of the incident report. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's common for Redditors to observe Wikipedia drama from a distance; and if anyone expresses displeasure at how things are going, there is no real reason to believe there is any deliberate canvassing going on - it's just people speaking their minds. Reddit is, after all, fundamentally a discussion forum.
As for Gamergate, no, I do not know "what it has to do with men's rights topics" because it does not have anything to do with men's rights topics. Trying to Google for any evidence of Gamergate being a men's rights topic does not uncover MRAs claiming that it is. It does, however, uncover pundits trying to compare the representation of MRAs in popular media to that of gamers, as well as feminists trying to associate Gamergate with the MRM on very specious evidence. It is unsurprising that there would be some overlap in these audiences, due to feminist-critical (or even outright anti-feminist) sentiment; but the MRM is not simply anti-feminism. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what you appreciate. And except for the fact that Redditors watch Wikipedia and that there is overlap between Redditors and men's rights editors, your rebuttal is silliness. For example, my WP:Canvassing is appropriate for reasons outlined at the WP:Canvassing guideline. It outlines what is appropriate and inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Mine does not at all fall within the inappropriate WP:Canvassing context. Like I stated, "Do find an editor who is not stupid if you want to debate." Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might also want to change up your editing style when editing as an IP; non-changes easily give away which registered Wikipedia editors IPs are. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit pointing to a WP:Canvassing thread, which further shows how some Gamergate editors are concerned with men's rights topics, and vice versa, one of them states, "WP:CANVAS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a big WP:BOOMERANG if they find this thread. They can claim that everyone disagreeing with them is a Gamergater from 8chan and use that as an excuse to ban them like they did with Toku. If you're going to go to war in a controversial section, don't start by giving the other side a plate of ammo." LOL!! Anyone with decent Google skills can find the other WP:Canvassed threads as well. Someone should go ahead and close this joke of a WP:AfD, and only because of the mass tainting. As usual, men's rights editors and some pro-Gamergaters (hmm, "Gamergaters"?) cannot win arguments without mass WP:Canvassing, and are obvious as the sky with their WP:Canvassing. But then again, I suppose they have to WP:Canvass because of how supposedly gynocentric Wikipedia is. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously going to use an obvious false flag by whoever made that thread post in an attempt to silence and ignore users like me and many others who are here, within this discussion, from genuine reasons? For the record, I arrived here following your post at WP:MED, which I have on my watchlist. Many long-term Wikipedians here likely arrived from similar noticeboards (e.g. AfD noticeboard, WP countering systemic bias), and probably don't appreciate what you're writing right now. We don't close a thread because it's tainted by SPAs, we simply ignore the SPAs and weigh the discussion based on arguments rather than numbers, like how it's always been. Just so you know, anyone can make an anonymous post on the internet, and unless you have access to the IP logs, you can't determine that simply who is writing what. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boo! I stand by my "06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post because, among other things, it addresses the obvious inappropriate WP:Canvassing, whether we consider that so-called bait thread or not. Now...I'm going to go back to eating my popcorn while I watch this mess unfold. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to backpedal away from an obviously outrageous proposal to close the discussion, at least retract it. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, look at the "many long-term Wikipedians[']" edit histories; the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are... Well, let's just state you are incorrect to believe that most of editors in this deletion debate landed here via appropriate means. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're being unconstructive here. Why not use a simple mechanism to determine who should and shouldn't be here? If they have <50 edits OR made their account within the past 72 hours, their opinion is given less weight, and if they don't meet this criteria, it's business as usual? Why are you so intent on being deceptive about who's participating in this discussion? It's a very cheap ploy, and it's an unconstuctive attitude to have on a collaborative encyclopedia project. Turn on WP:POPUPS, and notice that there are plenty of genuine Wikipedians here. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your defense of this mess is unconstructive. And that you cannot recognize barely-there editors, including WP:Dormant accounts suddenly popping up for this deletion debate, is something I chalk up to your inexperience with these matters. And minutes ago, I just noticed your "backpedal away" post; I'm not backpedaling away from anything; stating "I stand by my '06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)' post" is the exact opposite of backpedaling. If you want to defend the poor rationales to keep the Violence against men article, and the obvious barely-there editors, it would be better for you to find a different editor to preach to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're too lazy to back up your claims with proof, let me do it for you.
Keep (Long-term Wikipedians): Cirt (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 181291 edits); James500 (autoreviewer, reviewer, 26581 edits); Marteau (reviewer, rollbacker, 3368 edits since: 2003-03-23); Reyk (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 17294 edits since: 2005-09-05); Carrite (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 55012 edits); Topbanana (sysop, 68032 edits); Benlisquare (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 41604 edits); BabbaQ (34633 edits); Ruby2010 (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 31629 edits); Doc James (eponline, sysop, captcha-exempt, 123220 edits); George100 (10740 edits since: 2006-03-05)
Keep (Likely canvassed): Westside12345 (8 edits); 70.109.187.181; Jay Vogler (18 edits since: 2014-12-17); Calum Henderson (16 edits); Yankeescouser (3 edits); 76.64.13.4; Yhufir (4 edits); TheWaters (8 edits); Grillmaster423 (91 edits); Andelocks (13 edits); 208.54.38.224; Deep Purple Dreams (240 edits); Akesgeroth (80 edits); 88.107.70.141; 31.51.3.181; 58.7.81.106; 216.73.201.25
Keep (Borderline, needs further analysis): MeanMotherJr (1308 edits since: 2011-12-29); 386-DX (924 edits since: 2006-12-13); Mr.Random (1045 edits since: 2006-01-04); Yurivict (2290 edits since: 2004-12-11)
Delete (Everybody): CircleAdrian (700 edits); Shibbolethink (191 edits since: 2014-08-18); EvergreenFir (reviewer, rollbacker, 25759 edits); Alexbrn (17645 edits); Johnuniq (reviewer, rollbacker, templateeditor, 32204 edits); Fyddlestix (1285 edits); The Four Deuces (reviewer, rollbacker, 30452 edits); 67.78.248.206
Are you going to continue to feign ignorance and extend the drama? You are literally putting your emotional reaction above your logical decision making. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(The above comment has been inappropriately refactored by User:Seth Forsman PhD at 16:45, 1 March 2015‎. Refer to the revision history for a permalink to the original comment. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
You still show your inexperience on this matter. I looked at each one of the WP:Single purpose accounts' and barely-there editors' edit histories before your inaccurate "09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post above. I essentially stated that the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed; they are inappropriately WP:Canvassed. And by "Wikipedians," I mean the IPs in addition to the WP:Single purpose accounts and other barely-there editors. You should become more familiar with what WP:Single purpose accounts and WP:Dormant accounts are and how they operate. You can learn from the WP:Dormant accounts I pointed to in my "16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)" post above. The number of years an editor has been registered with Wikipedia and/or that Wikipedian's edit count can mean nothing in such cases. For example, we have editors who have been registered with Wikipedia for years, but are essentially WP:Newbies because of their sporadic editing that has been spread between years, as in this case. Look at some of these accounts that have similar edit histories. I am not feigning ignorance; I am speaking from knowledge/experience. You are either feigning ignorance or simply don't know what you are talking about. You are also extending drama by trying to school me, when you are the one who needs to be schooled on matters such as these. And if I'm putting my "emotional reaction above [...] logical decision making," so are you. But then again, I am going on logic because I am noting the massive WP:Canvassing that has gone in this deletion debate, and that this deletion debate is a joke because of the rationales given for keeping the Violence against men article and because of the massive WP:Canvassing. Again, "If you want to defend the poor rationales to keep the Violence against men article, and the obvious barely-there editors, it would be better for you to find a different editor to preach to." You are wasting your time debating with me. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what? Ignore them, and only pay attention to the arguments of those who are long-term regulars here, and I assure you, there are still plenty of them around here. Earlier on, you claimed that very few people here were genuine editors and the majority were SPAs/dormant accounts, a claim which was complete nonsense. "You are wasting your time debating with me" - in other words, "lalala, I can't hear you"? I've made my points perfectly clear. It is dishonest to state that a discussion should be closed because SPAs have taken part, because it is unfair on those editors who are here with honest intentions. I assure you, the closing admin is not stupid, and he won't fall for a bunch of nobodies who have barely any presence on Wikipedia, so you really have no reason to become overly concerned over this like you currently are. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"your inaccurate ... post above" Explain how it's inaccurate, pray tell. The figures are precisely accurate, up to that exact point in time, and taken directly from the site itself. I based my judgement on who is and isn't an SPA based on how much total edits they had, and what kind of user privileges they have. You have claimed that I am wrong, yet you do not elaborate on how you come to that conclusion. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You stated, "There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what?" Well, that's one reason why I can't take you seriously. You stated, "Earlier on, [I] claimed that very few people here were genuine editors." No, I stated that the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed. That is different wording. But, regardless... That the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed does indeed make it so that the significant majority of editors in this deletion debate are not genuine editors. You still don't know what you are talking about. My interaction with you is not a matter of "lalala, I can't hear you." It's a matter of "lalala, I know more than you. Move on now." And do stop with your "overly concerned" mess. Either way, I now know to avoid you in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Narcissism has no place on a collaborative project. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now you have added on to your post in a way that completely misses the point of my "09:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post. Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than brushing me off with a snarky attitude, again, I'd like you to explain how Cirt, James500, Marteau, Reyk, Carrite, Topbanana, myself, BabbaQ, Ruby2010, Doc James and George100 should not have their opinions taken into account. This time without the "I'm better than you, by the way here's a bunch of WP links that you've probably already read" wall of text. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with some of those editors, and I respect their opinions (the ones I'm familiar with and know to be good editors); Cirt and Doc James know that I respect theirs. But the keep votes in this deletion debate hold no weight...for reasons others have made clear in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let the closing admin decide then. That's fair, right? If these editors have great arguments, then great. If these editors have poor arguments, then great. There is no reason to prematurely close the discussion. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again. If narcissism has no place on Wikipedia, calling someone a narcissist surely does not. But, from what I've seen of your behavior here, at WP:Med, and occasionally elsewhere, you are no one good to collaborate with. Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well aren't you the pot calling the kettle black. Not only can't you accept that someone disagrees with you, you need to resort to taking others out of context in order to debate them. For instance, "There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what?" was not the end of my point, yet you cherrypicked those exact sentences to make it as if I'm carefree towards editors disrupting Wikiipedia en-masse. You refuse to get the point, and choose to selectively read what other people write. At least the closing admin now has plenty reason to think twice about anything he reads, thanks for your help. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I call the kettle black sometimes. Not in this case. The rest of your summary of me is so absurd, and applies your behaviors to me (for example, inaccurately presenting what someone stated), that it doesn't deserve a response. And, yes, your rambling, drawing even more attention to the WP:Canvassing has, in my opinion, worked out well. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably be a bit more forgiving in my responses to you if you weren't so condescending. It is unfortunate that the atmosphere has soured to this state, I guess neither of us are willing to compromise on our points. At this point in time, the best decision would be to leave it to the rest of the community. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Benlisquare - I have removed my name from your list twice now. I do not give you permission to slander my name, and will revert any attempt to re-add it to your list. Further attempts to add it to that list will result in administrator action. If you wish to discuss this matter, you can use my talk page. Thank you. This issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While appreciating the attempt to quantify things, this is fairly crap evidence either way since I'm listed as "obviously canvassed" but wasn't. This bizarre assumption that only people with thousands of edits care about Wikipedia content is the reason it took me so long to create an account in the first place. Jay Vogler (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been canvassed and am offended by the suggestion. I found this discussion on my own. Please do not cast aspersions. I am also offended by the implication of "not being a real Wikipedian". This nonsense is the kind of thing that ensures my continued refusal to get an account. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who's been hinted at potentially being canvassed, when given the chance, will deny the allegation. You cannot deny that most people would do this, and if I were also someone with a 2 month old account and 17 edits, I would do the same. The issue is, how can you demonstrate to everyone that you weren't? It's very difficult to, and given the dire circumstances of this discussion, leniency works to a disadvantage. Why are people all of a sudden coming over here to weigh in, if they aren't being canvassed? You might take offense, but it does appear extremely suspicious when an editor with 20 edits from 2007 suddenly shows up. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that logic is that the burden of proof rests on the accuser to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence. Suspicion is not proof. If it was, courts wouldn't exist. That's why those speaking out against your list have been doing so. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I guess you should convince Flyer22 that you're all here on genuine terms, since she's the one who believes that the majority of you are WP:Dormant accounts brought here by request. I don't have as much of a huge gripe, and the purpose of that rough list was to make a point to Flyer22, not to specifically segregate users into definite categories. Her argument is that because you people are present, the discussion should be closed. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the testosterone-doped crocodile tears over the "unfairness" of this AfD are killing me. ridiculous and so sad, all at the same time. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (strike stupidity Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Here's your desired response. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i am an idiot. for real. apologies to all. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N has never required that topics be international, so that isn't really an argument against this article. We normally accept national topics, and often sub-national ones. OTHERSTUFF is an essay, and it admits that such arguments may not always be devoid of merit. That essay is primarily concerned with arguments that an article should not be deleted because similar articles, which may also be invalid, have not yet been deleted; the essay might not be applicable where the similar article is admitted to be valid. James500 (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability still not established and entire article is still SYNTH. NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article has changed so much, I'm reaffirming my delete suggestion. The main issue now is the topic/scope. The article needs to be about violence against men because they are men, not violence against people who happen to be men. Compare to violence against women where it says, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive. So far that primary motive have not been established in general and on the few instances where it is, that material is best kept in their respective articles. There is no academic or political acknowledgement of violence against men as a social problem or much of anything that talks about men as targets of crimes because they are men (again, compare to violence against women and the international recognition of the problem). EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this article to a similar article is OR. This article is not a comparison to violence against women. USchick (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has "Violence against men" been researched extensively as the converse? Of course not.
But calling for the deletion of a subject with which the usurper may or may not have personal issues with is both callous and a form of censorship. In principal, such philosophy flies against Wikipedia's expressed purpose.Grillmaster423 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I genuinely do not understand how you are extracting that subtext. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating that articles on "notable" topics that are "possible to improve" be deleted... Astounding. Simply astounding. Were that philosophy extended to the encylopedia as a whole, we would not HAVE an encylopedia. Marteau (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, most likely deliberately. None of the content in the current article is appropriate, and slimming down the article to the single sentence of value that would persist: "Violence against men is violence against men" is grounds enough for deletion. Rather if the article were to be recreated it would require the use of the extensive sociological, anthropological and psychological literature that is available, instead of using io9 sensationalist nonsense combined with random statistics. Even a notable topic needs to at least reach stub status to be included in Wikipedia. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstand nothing. The fact is, you admit the topic is notable, you admit there is information available to improve it, you admit it can be improved, yet rather than give it a little time to improve, you advocate its outright deletion. That is, as I said, astounding. Marteau (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you do. Articles may be deleted for lack of content, regardless of whether they have potential to be improved. I do not oppose having the article, simply having such an abysmal article as was this one in its previous state. Some of my concerns have been dealt with, but I still stand behind that without the improvements it should have been deleted. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You understand that nearly all the hits in the search you linked to do not include the phrase "violence against men"? Haminoon (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He neglected to quote the search phrase. Try this. Marteau (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. There is absolutely no evidence one of the editors has "strong anti-male views". Haminoon (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been absolutely no serious questions about the petitioner's motivations so far. Haminoon (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been brought up many times here that the user who has brought this article up for deletion has a conflict of interest due to his/her personal views. While personal attacks should not be welcome (which the user you responded to here has thankfully refrained from), these motives should be considered. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its been brought up, but there has been no serious questions and no evidence of a conflict of interest. I don't see what motives there are to be considered. The nominator's opening statement if clearly argued and can stand on its own. Haminoon (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that you stating that there's been no serious questions is disingenuous. You may disagree with the claims, but I can assure you that those who have brought her motives into question take it very seriously. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not serious enough to produce any evidence. I'm still waiting to see evidence of the editor's "strong anti-male views" and "conflict of interest". It sounds more like personal attacks than "serious questions" to me. Haminoon (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence has already been produced in this discussion several times over. Again, I feel you're being disingenuous. If you are not being willfully ignorant, though, and have instead legitimately missed these points, I strongly urge you to go back and read these comments. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism? That's evidence of nothing. The argument is specious and a thinly-veiled personal attack. Its like saying someone who edits punk articles shouldn't edit disco articles. Haminoon (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would be like the creator of National Association of Police Organizations, championing police, calling for the deletion of Police brutality, a page portraying police in a negative light. Or neo-Nazis calling for the deletion of the Holocaust page.. For someone who cares enough to create a whole project championing a specific gender's rights and then calls for the DELETION of a page which intimately concerns the opposite gender. Any user who calls for DELETION of any active page should and always will have their motives questioned.Grillmaster423 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Grillmaster423 said. The claim that these concerns are just "specious" and "a thinly-veiled personal attack" are flat out false and nothing more than a flippant personal attack in and of itself in a vain attempt to discredit differing opinion. These concerns of the submitter's background and motives are very relevant and very important to the discussion at hand and need to be taken into serious consideration. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be neutral, not "championing" its subject. People who don't understand this shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. ~~ Haminoon (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely why "Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism" should be deleted. Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Objecting to the existence of a perfectly viable WikiProject has no business in an AfD (or anywhere else). Please stop this battleground behavior right now.
Peter Isotalo 11:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, in the US, Police shoot and kill men at a much higher ratio than they do women. According to a Mother Jones article of arrest-related deaths, there were "4,594 arrest-related deaths of men in 2003-2009, versus :218 for women. In other words, 95% of those deaths are of men, 19 times more than women."
Other instances of violence specifically directed at men is with the recruitment of child soldiers of Africa. The violence is unique because the perpetrators turn their victims into lifellong instigators of the violence as :well.
Psychological violence has been conducted on men to a much higher degree in the military, where males were and are frequently subjected to a higher degree of verbal and physical abuse than their female counterparts.
Sexual violence against men has been conducted during medevil times with the flaying of Eunuch
Domestic violence against men is also an issue (Lorena Bobbit dismembered husband's genitals, Andrea Yates killed her and husband's five children - 4 boys and 1 girl.).
Prison violence in the form of sexual abuse has been perpetrated by female guards against male inmates.
Social violence against men as in when extreme feminists attempt to censor very real subjects on the sole basis of their own biases. Then when their own personal biases are called into question, decry sexism.
The list is ongoing. Granted, the topic is not well researched, but it does indeed have definable parameters of "specific types" of violent actions conducted against men - explicitly.Grillmaster423 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do some more reading on child soldiers in Africa and feminism before you attempt to add any of this to the article. Haminoon (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can do something "based on the advice given by" WP:BLOWITUP, however you cannot do something "per" WP:BLOWITUP. It's a personal essay, not a guideline or policy. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is consistent with reason 14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia." Tendentious OR is not suitable content. TFD (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like an improvement that should be made to the article, especially if there are sources that show that there is more violence against gay men than gay women (I strongly suspect that this is true, but I haven't researched it myself). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm seeing a lot of !votes (mostly from IP users) based solely on perspectives of sexism, and not on WP principles like WP:RS and WP:V (e.g., "keep because we have a 'violence against women' article" and "delete because sexism against men doesn't exist"). I strongly suspect that the canvassing is to blame; in any case, is there anything that can be done about this? I'm a bit rusty. Random (?) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've posted the above comment, a lot of the original research has been removed and better sourced sections have been added in. I was leaning towards moving to draft-space, but I think the article has been cleaned up enough to stay in article space. I therefore vote Keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On top of that definition of "Sexism" being a feminist-only definition (not the accepted definition of the world at-large), the article isn't about "only" male on male violence. There are plenty of forms of violence against males not perpetrated by males. Moreover, I find your characterization of men being unable to be opposed to male-male violence inflammatory and derogatory.Yhufir (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that male on male violence is not a threat, is the reason we need this article to explain the concept. See Androcide where men systematically wipe out thousands of other men. USchick (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it laughable that you quote Anita Sarkeesian in support of your ridiculous statements. I thought there was no one left who took her seriously. Youtube: Anita Sarkeesian Busted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellznrg (talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-17282-000
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2
A number of commenters, including the nominator, are claiming that maybe this shouldn't be an article at all, which is what the debate here is about. --George100 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's trying to insinuate that a good number of the "keep" !voters just want a coatrack against feminism. Random (?) 15:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm actually insinuating that many of those who have been piling on votes haven't paid much attention to what little content there is. The nonsense examplified above is pretty damned bad. So less talk, more action.
Peter Isotalo 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any argument to the effect that a poor article on a valid topic must be improved within the deadline of an AfD cannot normally be entertained. Firstly, it conflicts with the editing and deletion policies. Secondly, it would allow people to force the mass deletion of large numbers of articles by deliberately swamping AfD with far more nominations than limited manpower of the system can handle. It would invite mass nominations. James500 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please... People are merely piling on votes by now. This is not a debate about procedural guidelines.
Peter Isotalo 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question: What's wrong with the diffs you cite as "crap"? Circumcision of male infants (which can never be with the infant's consent) is regarded by many activists as "unnecessary", "a violation of rights", "harmful and unethical", etc. It involves physical force to damage bodily integrity, and is thus "violence" by an entirely reasonable definition. And the example of gender-biased conscription is reliably sourced and unarguably a question of violence. Perhaps it is not the most encyclopedic content, but it is far from being beyond repair, and it illustrates that there is clearly enough material under the broad subject heading to meet GNG. (You know, in case the category and its multiple subcategories somehow didn't make the point. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to include circumcision as an example of violence against men, you have to reference it with a source that actually defines it as violence against men. WP:V applies here as much as anywhere else.
Peter Isotalo 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jytdog EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 05:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ex abuso non arguitur ad usum" (legal maxim meaning, "From the abuse of a thing you cannot argue as to its use") Marteau (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I meant in the summary (see Jytdog's talk page). I do agree, though, that the article is "a shit magnet for knee-jerk gender-parity-driven editing" - just look at all the IPs, etc. here who are only using gender parity to defend its existence. That said, that's more a reason to protect the article to some degree than to delete it. Random (?) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been substantially improved since the afd was started. Would you care to explain why the afd "seems entirely political"? --Haminoon (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Haminoon: As per Cirt[3] this article was aleady in good shape—still in need of further work but in no condition warranting deletion. The nominator's WikiProject memberships also raises a warning flag with me with regard to COI, especially as gender issues are highly politicized to begin with. In my eyes, this AfD looks bad. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And before you respond to me the way you have to others in this AfD, let me just preemptively counter with the appearance of COI does not mean there is a conflict of interest; however it remains suggestive, correctly or not. I am not trying to cast aspersions on the nominator, but especially after the GGTF debacle, editors should be wary of taking actions that could lead to people making such assumptions of COI in the first place. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read COI? I don't see how "full of absurd factual errors" can equal "in good shape". But then maybe I have a COI because I worked on a page of woman at some point.--Haminoon (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are alleging that the article is full of absurd factual errors, perhaps you'd care to point to one? 76.64.13.4 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We were talking about the article when the afd was started, but here are some removals: 1, 2, 3. --Haminoon (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing factual errors. wcd.nic.in actually is the "Ministry of Women & Child Development, Govt. of India"; their PDF does in fact claim that more boys than girls were victims of sexual abuse - PDF page 88, labelled page 74 states Out of the total child respondents, 53.22% reported having faced one or more forms of sexual abuse that included severe and other forms. Among them 52.94% were boys and 47.06% girls. On the next page we read In fact 9 out of 13 States reported higher percentage of sexual abuse among boys as compared to girls, with states like Delhi reporting a figure of 65.64%., and Out of the total child respondents, 20.90% were subjected to severe forms of sexual abuse that included sexual assault, making the child fondle private parts, making the child exhibit private body parts and being photographed in the nude. Out of these 57.30% were boys and 42.70% were girls. So, yes, the study does in fact explicitly state the conclusion that you say it doesn't come to. It also cites a study by Save the Children claiming that Among respondents, 48% of boys and 39% of the girls faced sexual abuse.
The claims being made by the Government of India study are restricted to India, and were represented as such in the diff you removed. The WHO estimate (not a specific study) they mention, OTOH, gives worldwide numbers, which the Government of India reasonably believes to be underestimates based on their own findings. Your assertion that it quotes a WHO study that says the opposite is the factual inaccuracy here.
Regarding the claims about prison rape, you appear to be claiming that something printed in an unreliable source is necessarily an "absurd factual error", because it contradicts your assertion that Most rapes are not reported - one for which you provide no citation. For what it's worth, Wikipedia's article on rape by gender already reports, with multiple reliable sources, that Several studies argue that male-male prisoner rape, as well as female-female prisoner rape, are common types of rape which go unreported even more frequently than rape in the general population. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain the Indian government study didn't come to the conclusion presented in the wiki article. The report authors understand statistical significance. Re prison sexual assault, the claim in rape by gender is quite different to the claims in the edits I linked to above. You clearly didn't read the edit summaries. --Haminoon (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't discuss this further on this page - would make sense to do so on the article talk page if need be. --Haminoon (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
War and genocide are covered in War and Genocide.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
but that is just the point - they are about an aspect of genocide, not about an aspect of "violence against men".
I genuinely don't understand this stance. We have thousands and thouands of articles on overlapping topics, but provided with a single example of reliable sources with serious, scholarly discussion about violence, you argue that we can't have this because we have a top-level article on it. This is not constructive debate.
Peter Isotalo 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we have topics that B, C, D, E that sources have discussed we can have articles about B, C, D, E. However, we cannot lump them together as topic A unless sources have discussed topic A and the sources have discussed topics B, C, D, E as they relate to A otherwise it is plain and simple WP:SYN and WP:COATRACKing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aldnonymous (AldNon), it was deleted the first two times and renamed/redirected the third time. So to say that those recreating it should "give it up already, pls" is more accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Then I am even more surprised why this page still able to exist without being deleted, delete restored delete restored again, doesn't seems to be a sane action, let this page be. Even stronger reason to Keep, amirite?--AldNonUcallin?☎ 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Aldnonymous (AldNon), that's poor rationale. This article is past its "third time's a charm" mark. But the motto for the recreation of this article is "Try, try again." Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well keep anyway <redacted per advice on my talkpage>.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time for me to stop replying to you now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aldnonymous, it isn't appropriate to refer to women as "my cute little X". Please consider striking that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aldnonymous, Sarah is absolutely right. That was an unprovoked and very serious breech of civility. Please redact it asap.
Peter Isotalo 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kikichugirl: this is no place to be casting aspersions. Please strike your comment about radical feminists. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to insult or offend anyone, EvergreenFir. I was simply (sarcastically) quoting the many allegations against feminists that use "radical feminist" as an insult. I apologize for my tone. As such, I have modified my comment to reflect this view. I hope this helps clarify my meaning. — kikichugirl oh hello! 22:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kikichugirl: Thank you and yes that does clarify it. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kikichugirl: I'm curious what you mean re: "Is [violence against men] on the same scale as violence against women? No, I don't think so." Unless you're talking about a very specific form of violence, I'm fairly certain violence against men is considerably more prevalent. If we're talking about violence against men because they're men vs against women because they're women, I might agree with you. Even then, the degree of violence is a factor (ie women initiating domestic violence more frequently vs women being survivors of serious injury due to domestic violence more frequently). Separately, I wanna thank you for contributing to the discussion. I think you're on point.Yhufir (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume they mean proportional victimhood compared to perpetration. Men commit more crime and are victims of more crime in sheer numbers, but women are disproportionately victimized. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to make this an issue here or hijack the topic, I really am just curious: "Disproportionate" compared to what? I have a hard time believing women are more frequently victims of violence. It also seems dubious that women are disproportionately targeted by men (or women for that matter). Are we saying that women are disproportionately victimized in terms of ratios? I just don't understand how that could make sense.Yhufir (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not the venue for education. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel he's asking more for you to back up your claim, which is a legitimate request. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Men make up only half of all adults. These articles are also about adults. Violence against LGBT people, Violence against women, Violence against prostitutes, Violence against Muslims in India. USchick (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. You aregue that the current article is WP:SYN and then offer your own novel synthesis as a reason to keep. I really don't think a proper article can be written at this title. It's been tried, for a long time, and failed miserably thus far. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I offered policy-based reasons, and then added an opinion. It's been done many many times in AfD arguments, and there's nothing particularly wrong with it. Also, it would be worth your time to examine the previous AfD votes. The first two are for completely different articles than what currently exists, and had very little participation from the broader community. And like I said, there is scholarly coverage of this exact subject in reliable third-party sources. Forget my opinion and focus on that. —Torchiest talkedits 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to vote, as in many/most cases user can easily get a new IP address simply rebooting the modem, or changing modem MAC address, or stopping by at another coffee house location with WiFi. There is no reliable way to establish the credentials of such users, nor can there be. Anybody half knowledgeable can cast many votes from IP addresses without much effort or time investment. Yurivict (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You sure you want to go down that road, Yurivict? I count at least 15 keep votes[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] that could be discounted with similar arguments.
Peter Isotalo 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not based on number of "votes". USchick (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to make it clear that anyone who comes here with a "strong keep" has absolutely no business complaining about IP-users that want to delete.
Peter Isotalo 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks in this discussion. Thank you. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does my position on the issue have to do with IP address voting? IP address votes only distract, and may look like votes to people not understanding modern networking. Make it confusing. Yurivict (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was, by someone who did not understand that two wrongs don't make a right. Marteau (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be buggered, Well in that case I was wrong and I apologize. –Davey2010Talk 03:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have a point if all I did was do a google search. Instead I looked specifically for scholarly articles on the subject. I've linked a few below. Thanks for being overtly dissmissive before investigating the subject at all though and lumping me in with obviously canvassed MRM SPAs. Capeo (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in the post directly above yours I'd say a Google Scholar search [20] does indeed show the subject has more than enough scholarly interest to support an article and GNG. Capeo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, in what way? From the top 20 results, I see none that purport to be about the general topic of "violence against men" – all fall neatly into the categories of "domestic violence", "sexual violence", and "violence against women", all of which are actual subjects of academic discussion and all of which we already have articles on. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and I could go. Do the types of violence researched tend to fall into categories as you describe? Yes, they do. As does every bit of research about violence against women so you could make the same argument against that article. Capeo (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of faulty logic happening here. Women can't take up arms? Only untrained civilian men can take up arms? Who will supply the weapons? The definition is not sourced, so it hasn't been decided whether or not "because they were men" is part of the definition. In any case, men have been losing their lives disproportionately for centuries and the violence is justified by society. This article is not passing judgment, it's presenting facts. USchick (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not because they are victims because of their gender. That's what the article is about: violence against men because they are men. That's what makes the topic notable for all "Violence against FOOBAR". The article is not and should not be some collect of issues related to men and violence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion about the definition belongs on the talk page. There's already a section there. USchick (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It deserves mention here as without that definition, it automatically fails GNG. We're trying to see if with that definition if it deserves deletion or not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 19:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Just because the discussion is relevant to the talk page doesn't mean that it's not also relevant here. EastTN (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this strikes me as fairly arbitrary demand. It's like asking that a precise, unambiguous definition for topics like Germans in India or women in science and calling for deletion if none can be precisely agreed upon. You have set up this condition by referring only to violence against women even though it's very clear that the nature of violence against women and men are entirely different. Peter Isotalo 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the examples you give, Germans in India or women in science, most folks are going to have a pretty clear idea of what the article is about. There may be some ambiguity around the edges, but the basic topic is easily understood. Coming to it cold, I would have assumed that "Violence against men" dealt with violence uniquely directed against men, rather than violence that just happened to affect one or more men. In any case, the scope matters, in part because we need to evaluate how many reliable sources are available for the subject matter within the scope of the article. We just need to know what the "it" is that we're talking about having an article on. EastTN (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth does your assumption about the topic matter here? Or the personal assumptions of any other user? It's very clear that "violence against men" simply means "violence directed against men". It's no more complicated than any variant of "X of/in/from/against Y". And I assure you that I could present just as many arbitrary demands to the examples I gave. Nationals of Germany or German-speakers? India as a nation or a sub-continent? Historically or contemporary? Women working with science or being the subject of science? Natural science or academics in general? I could go on forever. What you're talking about here is content, plain and simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the article topic is valid or not.
Peter Isotalo 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians cannot set up an article title and then drop things that we think are related to it. The topic itself has to be a subject of discourse and the items entered into the article must be discussed within that context by the original authors, WP:OR, particularly WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More