Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of domestic violence


 * 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. WjBscribe 03:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of domestic violence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Marked as needing a POV cleanup for over 18 months, and even after than, I needed to read no further than the first sentence to spot the trouble "Allegations of domestic violence are frequent in post-divorce/separation situations." Yeah? I'm sure that's neutral? Not. Whilst, I'm sure this would be a great subject for an essay, I can see no way that a neutral encyclopedic article could be written here that would pass WP:NOR never mind WP:NPOV. If any wikipedian with a track record in NPOV thinks otherwise, and indicates a willingness to take this on, I'll withdraw. But we let no brainers like this hang around for two long. -Docg 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; as written, this is a blatant, unsalvageable POV essay. *** Crotalus ***  00:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly sourced POV piece. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Pretty solid article, where is POV? What kind of point of view is the article promoting according to the deletion !votes? Delete per the explanation given by editors below. WooyiTalk, Editor review 16:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't see the POV in the first line, then I despair.--Docg 08:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, most of it is unsourced, which is a problem. It's very heavy with weasel words and often makes claims in contrast with others with no sources at all. POV appears to be slanted toward "most allegations are false" with virtually no sources to support that. I got as far as the first sentence before I saw serious problems:
 * Allegations of domestic violence are frequent in post-divorce/separation situations. - uncited
 * Some contend that situations... - who?
 * It is contended that the legal principle... - by who?
 * Others point out that... - and they would be?
 * Some have accused... - same as before
 * However, there is little evidence for this... - and no source for that
 * exaggerated or fabricated complaints are hardly limited... - no source
 * particular alarm due to the ease of their fabrication... - who is alarmed?
 * However, some assert that there is sufficient bias in some jurisdictions that even such an absurd tactic has been used successfully. - who? and prove it
 * false allegation is easy and disproof is virtually impossible, is thought by many to seriously compromise the integrity of the legal system... - unsourced
 * presumably motivated by the gains in property... - don't presume, cite
 * Many are concerned that the prosecuting authorities... - again who?
 * not taking seriously allegations can lead to further violence, as well as be judicial misconduct... - one example provided, not enough for a blanket statement
 * Others have noted that during a divorce proceeding... who?
 * "usually have the effect of separating them from one of their parents." - uncited quote
 * Of course, no one thinks that large financial incentives... - no one?
 * However, it is clear that there are motives... - possibly, but is there a source for this?
 * (Baskerville 2006) - now a nonexistent page.
 * Home Office Research Report 191 - Used as a source with no explanation of author or context.
 * DontMakeHerMad.com - A POV source
 * That's at least 1 example per paragraph. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 04:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a valid criminal topic, although the article does contain a number of unverified claims and definatly needs to be rewrite. Despite some POV issues, the article does contain reliable references which could be used as the basis for a general overhaul. Perhaps a collaberation between WP:LAW and WP:CRIME could salvage this article ? MadMax 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, it could (theoretically) be fixed. It could (theoretically) have been fixed anytime in the last 18 months. Will you fix it? If so, I will withdrawn.--Docg 08:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I was only offering a suggestion. WP:Crime was formed only three months ago and I certainly wasn't even aware this article even existed. As the majority of this article deals with the legal system (and I myself am not a law student), I would think informing members at WP:Law or its subsequent task forces to take a look at the article. MadMax 09:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete . This is an essay, based on argument rather than sources; the few ones given are used as illustrations only. Possibly a specialized article on the subject is necessary, but this is not usable as one--it's an opinion piece. DGG 06:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Crotalus and Mr. Z-man Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 11:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with domestic violence, even though it is quite long already Think outside the box 13:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete:
 * Once you take away the loaded original research ("Many are concerned that the prosecuting authorities simply do not take seriously the violence perpetrated by women on men", "it is clear that there are motives for false alllegation, and a judicial history that at least in some jurisdictions has made them a profitable and common tactic", "given the minimal evidence required, exaggerated or fabricated complaints are hardly limited to 'low threshold' conduct") there is nothing left of this article. Hell, it even makes arguments ("It is contended that the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty should apply as much to allegations of domestic violence as to any other allegations of criminal behaviour", "There is also concern that a man who denies that he has committed domestic violence may be regarded as committing domestic violence by his very denial. That is of course an absurd argument...").
 * There may certainly be valid things to be written on the subject. For example the Family Court of Australia has been experimenting recently with a more inquisitorial system in some cases, meaning less involvement for the lawyers, and they're starting to see subtly changing patterns in allegations of violence (less hesitance to raise them for fear of losing custody, less pressure from the lawyers to raise them to gain custody), and this sort of thing will eventually be studied properly. But I just don't think the academic work has been done yet.
 * This reads like fathers' groups POV and is chock full of original research to boot. There's nothing to salvage here. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the delete arguments above, I don't see much value from this article. We have a good Domestic Violence article already, I'm not even sure I see much that could be merged into it. If someone wants to try, after this is deleted, contact me for a copy of the text mailed to their wiki email (I won't even userify this one, too POV to be here). Delete. Aside, I removed an invocation of an icon ( Image:Symbol delete vote.svg) to mark an opinion, let's not start doing that here, ok? ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per DGG, etc. I think a NPOV essay on the subject would be interesting to read, but at present it would be OR even if NPOV could be managed.  I think writing this article in an NPOV, sourced way today would be very very difficult, perhaps impossible. --Joe Decker 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's an essay, not an article, written to advance a conclusion rather than neutrally inform. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but get some hard evidence in place of those "some contend" and "many are concerned" bits. Find someone who's concerned, and quote them!  I am not an expert in this particular branch of criminal law, but even I've seen references to studies about false allegations.  This is an important topic and deserves better than a sudden deletion. Heian-794 22:01, 9 May 2007 (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.