Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men


 * 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 Speedy delete as WP:POINT. Article may be recreated, but nonserious attempts should be speedy deleted. El_C 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Violence against men
The article was created by a copy-paste of Violence against women with the word "women" in the original changed to "men". Problem is that "violence against women" is a term of art, with specific denotative and connotative meaning in common use within at least some segments of the world, a fact reflected in everything from legislation like the Violence Against Women Act to book titles to people and groups who identify themselves as part of a "movement to end violence against women", , , all of which suggest that there is a cohesive idea. "Violence against men," as a topic name for a cohesive idea, has no such evidence for its existence; given the articles on which links to Violence against men have been added, the manner in which those links were added, and the way in which the article was created, it looks like a WP:POINT violation in the form of a neologism and original research. The Literate Engineer 02:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although it may not be a term of art or movement, it is still a concept that's talked about, even if only as a comparison with violence against women. [Check Google hits]  Google shows over 100,000 results for "violence against men" (754 "unique" results).  There is a potential for abuse (so to speak) with the article, so it might need to be monitored. ...  disco spinster   talk  02:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a legitimate issue, I'm sure, but this is not a legitimate article. eaolson 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as of now, it's nothing but a worthless restatement of the title. Possibly a legitimate subject, but this is a delete-and-start-over case. Opabinia regalis 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against later re-creation if someone wants to write a proper article about what is certainly a genuine subject. bikeable (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and I'd vote to delete the sister-article Violence against women as well. A term of art it may be, but in both cases the article amounts to no more than an (obvious) dictionary definition of their title term, plus some links.  WP is not a link farm. Vizjim 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Peta 06:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep For now. That said if the woman one is put up for delete I'll switch to delete for both.--T. Anthony 06:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is deleted and a precedent thus established I'll nominate that one for deletion too (not prod as there could be different principles involved). Vizjim 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I switch to delete. Although possibly an article on gender-related violence could be encyclopedic. Neither of these are articles and their titles are vague for encyclopedic purposes.--T. Anthony 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is removed the Violence against women thread should also be removied, it is prejudice and sexist if it doesnt happen (UTC)
 * Then nominate it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, don't. As per WP:POINT, wait for this one to be deleted and precedent established  before nominating other similar articles. Vizjim 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree, that it is a Legitimate Issue (UTC)
 * Comment adding two keep comments at the same time isn't just bad wikiettiquette, it's blatently obvious...--Isotope23 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, copying an article verbatim and replacing a single word is not the way to go about creating material. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment no vote from me, but the CLOSING ADMIN MIGHT NEED TO CHECK the changes to the Violence against women article made since this AfD opened, (assuming this closes as a delete). It looks as if someone is attempting to merge this article to it. (And making a bit of a mess if I'm any judge.) AndyJones 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This appears to be a pretty clear cut POV/WP:POINT article and it is unsourced to boot.--Isotope23 16:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Isotope23. Fernando Rizo 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It has relevancy
 * Delete, claims not verified and NPOV doesn't mean equal time. Gazpacho 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Or add some content. Perhaps someone could create an article about this topic which is more than the less-than -stub this is. Some of the articles it links to deal with rights rather than violence. No "Male Foot Binding" no "Husband Burning" to compare to "Female Foot Binding" and "Bride Burning." Edison 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This might be sexist of me, but I'd wager the vast amount of violence to males by females is violence to boys rather than men. I believe Charles Beaumont's mother abused him, in part, because she'd wanted a girl. Male on male violence is the main kind of violence reported, at least in the developed world, but that's more crime or gang activity.--T. Anthony 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - dont discriminate against males.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - What makes this different from Violence against women? It does happen, and it's just as legitimate an issue. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, why not try reading the discussion before taking part? As said above, if this goes then Violence against women will be put up for deletion as being a similar dictionary definition/linkfarm.  Discussion of this deletion proposal has nothing to do with the legitimacy of discussing violence against men and everything to do with whether the article a) violates WP:POINT, b) is encyclopedic, c) can be more than a dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:45, 15 September 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.