Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in the United States of America


 * 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. I would not object to an editorial move to Rape in the United States. Also, a merge discussion could take place at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rape in the United States of America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a nearly identical copy and paste from the United States portion of the Rape article, with only two or three very small blurbs added, all of which can easily be incorporated into the original article. Nothing has been done to distinguish this from the original U.S. rape article content and is therefore redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has plenty of things that could be added to it, as I have stated in the talk page. One section was copied over, adding 2868 bytes to what was already there, most of it that chart.  The article was 5,148 bytes before you tagged it for AFD.  That means 2280 bytes added to it.  An article isn't about its size though.  Are there not plenty of references out there about this topic?  Does the article not have plenty of potential to expand?  Rape is handled differently in different nations, based on the laws, willingness/requirements to prosecute, how the media portrays it, etc.   D r e a m Focus  08:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Google Book search has a lot of results, when searching for "Rape in the United States", it something well documented. Plenty of coverage in reliable third party media gives the article a right to exist.  And it is a very important topic to have.   D r e a m Focus  08:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - The problem is that you know there was opposition to the creation of this primarily spun out article and yet you have been content not to touch it, despite your protests that this was an important article, since the opposition was raised. I posted the following in response to your contention about usable unique content here, which said: "Regarding the amount of content, the only countable content for size is the "usable" content. In that regard, there was, at the time of my posting, 3670 bytes of usable content, and what you added is only 805 bytes, or only slightly over 20% of the content and as Johnuniq noted, the only significant content is what you took from the main article, written by others and unattributable. As I noted, you moved an entire section to start a new article without benefit of first broaching the subject to other editors, and to which, now, several editors have posted concerns with that action. We see a problem here or otherwise, comment would not have been made. As I noted, consider moving all of the content to a subpage in your userspace until you've actually had time to write it. And as I noted, at present, it would qualify for deletion based on content substantially identical to already existing material." I suggested you move the content to your userspace and develop it into something different than what already exists, a point which you repeatedly ignored in order to diss the concerns over attribution. There was no expansion or other attention paid to this in any way after that. Concerns were raised, ignored and dismissed, while you did nothing to change the fact that it is primarily duplicated content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The topic seems well covered in other areas, however, cf. Sexual violence in South Africa, there could be scope for this article if some notable/exceptional feature of rape in the US is found. As it stands, this article seems like a pointless localisation.  Jnthn0898 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient referenced info for a standalone article. Also it may be inevitable that such an article will be written. Why not do it now? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Rationale for deletion will not valid after removing the duplicated material at the original article. It is a notable topic and splitting it from the original rape article helps with preventing systemic bias. It will be inevitable that such an article would be created. May as well split it out now to avoid the difficulties of splitting at a latter date. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have split out more information from the rape article and added it to Rape in the United States of America. There was a heap of info that was biasing the article heavily to the US. The rape article still has a systemic bias toward certain countries and I have suggested that the info is split out. See the talk page. Now imagine a scenario where the rape article had all the Rape in the United States of America info PLUS info from the 200 odd other countries about rape. It would be a rather large page! Best we start with individual country articles now... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as an inappropriate and unnecessary spin out from Rape made just by copy/pasting info with little new information added, and it smacks of Americanism and systemic bias. Its creator states that he is just getting started (which is what a sandbox is for) and lists further areas he intends for the page, however none of those items are unique nor specific to the US, and instead should be applied to the main article. Rape is not so unique among other countries that it needs separate articles for every last country. The main Rape article is long because of too much redundancy. Clean up the original before looking at where possible split outs may be appropriate. However considering it already has had massive splits for such areas, this particular one seems particularly unnecessary.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, Wildhartlivie posted on Collectonian's talk page, to alert her to this AFD. Don't know if that counts as canvassing or not, since it was just one person.  As for your comment about "Americanism and systemic bias", I find that ridiculous based on the subject.  Is a list of the presidents of the United States, or the many other articles dealing with this nation, "Americanism"?  Famous people in English speaking countries have far more articles on the English language Wikipedia, than those of other nations, but you don't delete it because of the perception of "Americanism and systemic bias".   D r e a m Focus  15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that does not qualify as canvassing, I notified one editor who I am aware was concerned about the article. Please read WP:CANVAS so you can learn the difference between one post and inappropriate canvassing in order to sway an outcome. That is no different than posting notices of deletion discussions on projects, which was posted as well. You've been on Wikipedia far too long for that to be anything but a blatant attempt to discredit a nomination for deletion. It's nice to know you're checking up on my posts, though. I'd have to comment, at this point, that you've put more effort into this AfD than you have put into the article you spun out and the only effort that has been put into the article you created and abandoned since then has not been by you. Please don't attempt to carry other issues onto this discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is a bit ironic. First off, assume good faith.  If you thought she'd vote opposite of you, would you have alerted her talk page?  I don't think so.  And you are getting off topic.  I did not abandon the article.  I just don't work on the same article each day.  Articles have things added to them over time, by different contributing editors.  AFD is on commenting on the worthiness of the topic of an article, not what you think about the content.   D r e a m Focus  16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only irony is in first saying you don't know if it is canvassing or not, but electing to imply that it is, then telling me to assume good faith, while in the same post then clearly accusing me of canvassing. Please, run on over to WP:AN/I and inquire into whether my telling one editor, with whom you have had ongoing WP:AN/I and WP:WQA issues, is canvassing. Again, I clearly made one post, to one editor, who had expressed concern about the article and I do not suspect that your intention in announcing that I posted a note to her was either good faith or well-intentioned, considering your issues with her. In the meantime, you have never made one more meaningful contribution to that article since just after it was created. Perhaps I should post a concern at WP:AN/I about waffling into a direct accusation of violating WP:CANVAS the second time you mentioned it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Wildharlive on talk page. Ikip (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the bias exists if the info remains in the rape article. Moving the US info to its own article stops the bias that is created for anyone reading the rape article. A Rape in the United States of America article has no bias for the reader. It is clearly an article about "rape" in the "US". The rape article should contain information that is generic with little or no focus on a particular country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although it's not a good idea to start an article as a copy-and-paste (unless you're doing it user space), it's an encyclopedic enough topic. I do appreciate the concerns about whether this will open the door to a bunch of articles about rape in "every last country".  However, I disagree with the idea that rape is the same in the United States as it is in other countries.  Perhaps, like murder, the ultimate result of a rape is the same worldwide.  However, the differences are in how the act of rape is treated in a particular nation, both legally and culturally.  What constitutes rape, how it's punished, how victims are treated, whether there are cultural barriers to whether it's even reported-- those are not universal.  Mandsford (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let us not focus on the "copy and paste". That is now fixed since I have deleted the duplicated material from the rape page. Since WP is always growing it follows that some articles should be split. Due to the large amount of US info in the article it was a logical move to split it out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another comment.... Crime in the United States exists as an article as well as all the other ones in Category:Crime by country. Rape in the United States of America is just the next step in the growth of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Rape in the United States. As Mandsford has suggested, there are plenty of ways this article can go to make it substantially different from Rape and there is plenty of verifiable information out there to do so. Location (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already edited both article so that there is no overlap. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to Rape in the United States per User:Location. Obviously notable per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment seems to be a pointless fork so far, which the forker him/herself is having trouble justifying, according to the talk page. I am not convinced that there is anything about rape in the USA that sufficiently distinguishes it from rape in other countries (or in general) to have a dedicated article.  pablo hablo. 20:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you actual read the [talk page]? Different nations have different problems, investigation techniques, laws, ways the media covers it, how society judges it, etc.  Its not the same everywhere.  The article has great potential on its own.   D r e a m Focus  20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I actual read lots of comments from you about how, having created this article, you had not a scooby what you were going to do with it. I actual think that there is, possibly, potential for an article dealing with social and legal aspects of rape in different countries, if actually editors who actual write content get involved.  pablo hablo. 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with creating an article that is split out of another and then marking it for further work by other editors (who may have a much better knowledge of the topic). The way WP works is that everybody does what they can do. Some build the structure, some write the content. I freely admit that I have littered WP with articles that are very stubby skeleton pages with an expand tag. WP is a work in progress so there is nothing wrong with that. Note that the Rape in the United States of America is of a sufficient length to be a standalone article. Merging it back will introduce systemic bias into the rape article. Note that I have split out Rape in the United Kingdom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced and presented article on an important subject that clearly meets our inclusion policies. Per Alan Liefting and per WP not paper topics should be split out into seperate articles to prevent them getting too long. Per Mandsford it should be possible to find sufficient sources on the US related aspects of the subject to bring this to at least GA status if editors so desire. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Rape in the United States, or in the alternative, merge to Rape per above. No surprise this article was put up for deletion, despite being well sourced. Ikip (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems entirely acceptable as a spinoff article. There might not be enough sources to write a 'Rape in X' article for every country, but there certainly is for the United States. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced. Notable. Perfectly reasonable as a spin off article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Putting aside the oath that git the article here there is little doubt that the subject is notable and sourcible. Plenty of books have been written about this subject and if any country has amassed statistics on rape it is the US. Doesn't the FBI or similar track specific rape crimes, or at least serial rapists? -- Banj e  b oi   14:27, 24 November 2009 (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.