Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childhood 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. After disregarding the massive wave of sockpuppets, there's not much left in the way of genuine support for this article.  Sandstein  21:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Childhood Domestic Violence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTESSAY Adam9007 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge We already have Effects of domestic violence on children and Child abuse. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - looks like a duplicate concept about which we have already written about. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems this article Childhood Domestic Violence has a detailed report on the historical and current status of childhood domestic violence. The article is solely directed at providing verifiable and reliable information concerning the experience of a child who is present in a home where domestic violence takes place. It does not report on other related but separate topics, such as physical child abuse or corporal punishment, both of which are discussed in different articles, including Effects of domestic violence on children. It also does not report on domestic violence as a focus subject. It aims to review childhood domestic violence as separate from other adverse childhood experiences, as it is so viewed in the ACE Study (1995-1997) conducted by Kaiser Permanente health maintenance organization (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDV), and other relevant research. The nominated article also provides links to other subjects, such as physical child abuse, under See Also, recognizing the subjects are related, but separate from the intention of the nominated article.
 * The nominated article also uses authoritative secondary sources that provide a much greater breadth of data on the subject and its worldwide occurrence than appear elsewhere in Wikipedia, with peer-reviewed reports that are as recent as 2015. Critical studies are cited that do not appear elsewhere, as well. Further, the nominated article addresses remedial approaches discusses in the research literature, which are not discussed in the Effects of domestic violence on children article. All of this would make a merge with any other article erroneous, difficult and in the end, unwieldy.LoneProtector 21:38, 18 February 2016(UTC)
 * "It also does not report on domestic violence as a focus subject." What? Yes it does? And if the only thing not at the other article are "remedial approaches" (which there actually are) then merge would be very much merited. And you're the creator of the article, right? You forgot your password? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I looked into a whole lot of the quoted articles and I believe that this deals more with the mental effect childhood domestic violence has on children. The articles that were proposed to be merged with this one all dealt more on the physical level. I believe that there is a distinct difference and it would make a merged page more cumbersome and possibly disjointed. Deleting the page would possibly be a dis-service. I vote this page be kept as is. Perhaps expanded a bit more to reflect the mental effects would be a good idea. Equine-man (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Keep - This defines the issue as a noun instead of some broad general description, this newer article is better sourced and after further review, I feel that the Effects_of_domestic_violence_on_children article should be merged into this one. User:JennyEditorFL (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well sourced article. About notable subject. BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was surprised to receive a deletion notice at this stage, since last week it only indicated that the article seemed to have original research and personal expression and these needed to be improved. This was done, and there is now third-party secondary source material provided for every part of the current article. Due diligence was used to ensure that all material was factual and that the article was fully neutral in its perspective. No mention was made about other articles or issue taken with the nominated article on the grounds of duplication at that time. The other article doesn't fully cover how the impact of a child being around domestic violence affects them throughout their entire adult life.  For all of these reasons, it would be appropriate to reconsider and remove the Deletion notice from the nominated article and merge the older article with this more comprehensive one. WMCproofreader (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - if this is primarily about the psychological angle, that doesn't mean it's not the same subject as the pre-existing Effects of domestic violence on children. It just means it's other info on the same topic, which could if it's that much different as to not duplicate, be merged and included there.  SatansFeminist (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)*
 * Comment -- Jennyeditorfl has made no edits outside of this page, as have others. Please refer to this ongoing SPI. GABHello! 21:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article seems to be a more comprehensive coverage of the overall subject. I believe it has substantially more information on the impact this has on a person as a whole for the course of their entire life, not just their childhood. User:Ctm1013 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a subject that requires careful sourcing. It isn't a casual subject. This article treats the information with a lot of care, more than the other article. A photo of a child is included in the other article, also, that is disturbing and which affects neutral POV, I think. User:PrinceHal (talk)
 * Comment This AfD is being massively SPA'd. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2016 (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.