Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims


 * 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. The article needs work to make it a little more encyclopedic in tone, but not to the level of deletion per WP:TNT. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  02:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:TNT: WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:ESSAY Kleuske (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a significant and well sourced subject that involves medical and legal issues. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The well sourced bit escaped my attention. Most claims are sourced by referring to specific incidents and surrounded by weaselwords suggesting they are common occurences. Kleuske (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are currently 52 refs on the page. This is obviously a well defined subject, and there are numerous sources specifically about it . This is not a "coatrack". My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please not that I'm not arguing "Fails WP:GNG" but WP:TNT based on poor quality. This needs to be fundamentally rewritten.
 * It is not the number of sources I'm worried about, but their usage. Case in point, the section Harassment by private investigators is supported by three sources: one of which are court documents where misbehavior is alledged (only the complaint is used, no outcome), the other two relate to the Nate Parker-case. Parker was acquitted of all charges. This is just one example of a specific case being used to support general statements. That's WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. That's not the only misuse of sources. Just counting the number of references, without any concern as to what these sources are or how they are used is bad practice, nay, it's cargo cult editing. Kleuske (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to rewrite the page, but this is not a reason for deletion, at least not in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT. "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." I note you have no counterarguments, except, well, "do it yourself". Kleuske (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is big, informative and sourced page on important and legitimate subject. I do not see any real indications that it must be TNT-ed. Note that WP:TNT is an essay, not a policy. According to your own arguments, it should be improved. Yes, sure, every version is a wrong version. My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not informative, but scaremongering and misleading. I've pointed out just one example of this text being anything but well-sourced and informative and you have utterly failed to address any of it (apart from DIY). I already removed some obvious WP:COATRACKing: breast ironing in Cameroon. I outlined my objections to the very lede on the talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You tell above: delete "Per WP:TNT: WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:ESSAY". OK. The policies are only WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. You must explain: (a) why this whole page, rather than a part of it, was "original research", (b) why this is a blatant BLP violation that can be fixed only by deleting whole page, and (c) why this is an inherent NPOV violation that can be fixed only by deleting whole page. I do not see it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It contains elements of all three (Mostly WP:SYNTH). If it were, completely, a WP:BLP issue, I'd chosen a prod blp. As another example, at the moment, the article is claiming censorship. The issues are serious enough to warrant deletion per WP:TNT. Kleuske (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Clearly passes GNG criteria, it is extensively sourced, and while it could use a bit of cleanup, it is clearly a notable topic.  Important not to confuse article quality with notability.  What's in there does have some pretty strong personal opinions and would benefit from a more scholarly tone, but I see no need for TNT.   Montanabw (talk) 08:51, 4 November 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.