Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domestic violence and pregnancy


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Domestic violence and pregnancy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While the article is properly referenced with reliable sources, it is an essay and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. – Dream out loud (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Following a discussion on Talk:Domestic_violence, it was discussed that this was acceptable content for a separate article as well as a subsection of the greater Domestic Violence page Cshaase (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion on Talk:Domestic_violence, I agree that the Domestic violence and pregnancy article should be kept, and I read the Discussion page also (Talk:Domestic_violence_and_pregnancy). I think the concept is good. I don't think the presentation is neutral, and it has too many directions in one article. It seems well-referenced, although I did not check the references. It needs copy editing and cleanup. Dikonped (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
 * You may be right, but what do you mean by "...it has too many directions in one article..."? --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestions for improvement but wouldn't Talk:Domestic_violence be a better forum rather than the deletion page? I'd like to improve the article so it is as neutral and finished as it can be, but it needs to be established that it should be kept and not deleted Cshaase (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs cleanup, but phenomenon is notable and article doesn't appear to be drawing any original conclusions. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Probably an encyclopedia-worthy topic, but this is a polemic original essay in current form. Someone needs to brandish the NPOV sawzall... Carrite (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point out the polemical passages? I'm not seeing them here. --Danger (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this article adds substantial content to the subject of domestic violence. Can someone elaborate on how this would better fit the NPOV? MonicaHe (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since when is "needs clean-up" a reason to delete an article? I don't see any evidence of original research here. Virtually every sentence is properly sourced. If there are POV issues, those can be addressed without putting a torch to the entire work. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Agree with others that it is just an essay and has serious NPOV issues. Could potentially be a good topic for an article but Wikipedia would be quite clearly better off without the content in its current form.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Question Are the concerns being raised about NPOV issues about content or tone? Cshaase (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My own concerns are primarily tone. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What parts specifically? Cshaase (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The author appears to have properly cited the sources utilized. It would be helpful if you all could provide clear examples of specific NPOV violations within this article as opposed to broad/generalized statements.Amr0316 (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Kaldari took the words off of my screen. If the nom or commenters could point out specific passages that need POV work, that would be very helpful for article development. Danger (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is not original research, as it is cited very carefully and from reliable sources. The article is about a sensitive and controversial topic, making the information the article presents all the more valuable to Wikipedians. As long as the author maintains a neutral point of view, it should not be a problem for anyone to post information on a controversial topic. MariaNunez (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Extensive reference list and an excellent start to an under-recognized topic. Also, I checked the discussion page for Domestic Violence and I appreciate the open stance and the author's willingness to discuss the article. Kaldari has a point, if there are POV issues, let's address the specific areas of the passage without removing the page completely. Slin2264 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article does not appear to be a personal essay. The article is adequately supported by what appear to be reliable resources, and does not seem to reflect any personal feelings on the part of the wiki contributor.  I agree that it would be helpful if questions about the article could be raised more specifically to support the aforementioned claims about tone and personal opinion. Leejohnson898 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is substantive work that is extensively cited with reputable sources. It is not original research, and simply because the topic is perhaps contentious not does automatically make the wiki contributor biased. Moreover, editing the tone of the page can be done without actually taking it down. Colleenfugate (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Well, there's definitely been a lot of a positive feedback on this article. Those who are suggesting this article is violating NPOV policy needs to provide some concrete examples of biased views. If there are any, I'm sure the author would be happy to make those changes. Personally, I don't think there will need to be major changes made to this article. Also, Talk:Domestic_violence obviously shows that the author has received feedback saying she had enough content for this page to stand alone. Looking at the extensive content and references cited, I would have to agree and back up the author. MonicaHe (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is cited with legitimate sources and is substantially important to the topic of domestic violence. I don't think it is necessary to delete the article, but rather suggestions be made. and edits could be made accordingly. --Yk12 (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic of this article is unique to Wikipedia, and looking at the author's extensive source list, it would hard to claim it a personal essay. The number of credible sources additionally demonstrates its important to the broader topic of domestic violence and thus a legitimate page addition. Mschweickart (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)mschweickart


 * Perhaps you mean that the topic is not unique to Wikipedia? There are lots of articles with the same topic when the Google Scholars are queried. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If you bother to read through the article you see there are sources to statements showing that people have done studies on this, and the reasons why it happens.  D r e a m Focus  16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep AfD is not cleanup, and I don't see anyone questioning the notability of the topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;The topic itself has been covered by numerous books and journal articles, including medical manuals and scientific studies. I think it's safe to say this is worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The Keep editors above convince me that there should be no difficulty deciding to keep this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article does not appear to have created original research, but instead uses valid sources, including secondary sources, to support what is a vital topic of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anabuiles8 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. Even if it was a mess, it looks fine now. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep very relevant and notable subject.Nirame (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - very much so notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2011 (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.