Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relational aggression


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Relational aggression
Original Research Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep appears to be a recognized psychological term http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Relational+aggression%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
 * Delete - as an unsourced original research essay. If someone wants to write a proper article on the psychological term that isn't a dicdef, I invite them to. Otherwise, delete this unencyclopedic piffle. FCYTravis 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

no, keep this. I see no difference between this article and, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation. Reaction-formation simply defines the term but is categorized as a stub for expansion. This article should be treated as a stub and not deleted out of hand. Consequently, I have stubbed this article
 * Comment - It's completely unsourced, which means we have no idea where it came from, and it reads like an essay. FCYTravis 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but 'clean up. It's a recognized psychological term; I've heard it used most often in the context of the head games teenage girls play with each other. This needs serious rewriting, though. Daniel Case 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, recognized pyschological term. Kappa 23:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep, I did a quick rewrite. its still a stub I think but the content presentation is logical (IMHO) and should now be salvageable and extendable with less difficulty Ginar 00:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously important. -- JJay 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is also known as 'female bullying', or family bullying or workplace bullying, it is a new area of research so be patient until someone cleans up article.

If kept then needs to justify characterising this as female aggression. At present seems based on sexist stereotyping. States boys carry out a physical form of this and yet then includes physical aggression under definition for girls.


 * comment I believe the term was coined specifically to refer to the type of bullying that occurs in female relationships. Being a parent and having children, I know that girls bully differently than boys and I think that's what the article should try to capture. Its not necessarily sexist to point out existing differences in gender behaviour.Ginar 14:17, 20 January 2006 (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.