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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus on this article's notability, or whether it is synthesized information. Both sides present strong arguments, but at the end of the day I don't feel that the community has a chance of currently determining which outweighs the other. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Violence against men

Violence against men (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been deleted twice already and renamed once, so I think it's worth discussing whether or not we want to keep this latest incarnation. My personal opinion is that the article is merely synthesis of various statistics, and does not reflect a coherent topic of coverage sufficiently distinct from violence. In theory, you could create any number of articles of the type "Violence against X", for example, Violence against 20–30 year olds, but in most cases, the scope is not going to be sufficiently distinct from violence. The reason we have a Violence against women article is because there is a large body of theory and research devoted to this as a distinct phenomenon. Same with Child abuse. In other words, there are many reliable sources devoted exclusively to those subjects and the subjects are distinct encyclopedic topics. As the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by and against men, there is no need for a separate article devoted to that (just as there is no need for articles devoted to Violence against adults or Violence during war). Kaldari ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

*Comment The article that was previously redirected is here [1]. That article was mostly about domestic violence and it was redirected to Domestic violence against men. We have articles like Violence against women in Guatemala and Domestic violence in Peru with many more for each individual country. But not for Men? Really? The article that was redirected was not the same article. Please look at content. The article is sourced with research articles published in peer reviewed journals, so this is clearly a topic of interest for research scientists. USchick ( talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: Before this article was recreated, it was discussed at Talk:Domestic violence against men/Archive 1#Violence against men. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Educational and encyclopedic. Good introduction to sub articles referenced in links in the article. Nice use of structure and organization to frame key topic points. Could use expansion with additional secondary sources, particularly with an emphasis on scholarly and academic source coverage. — Cirt ( talk) 23:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

An article that consists entirely of synthesis cannot be encyclopedic in Wikipedia's sense of the word. It might be informative for you, but the sources do not discuss violence against men as defined in the article ("violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men"). They discuss male rape, war violence, etc. without saying that men hurt other men because the victims are men. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

That definition wasn't included in the article when Cirt !voted. The original definition in the lead section was violence directed primarily or exclusively at male persons, which is essentially the same definition that appears in Violence against women. Someone re-worded the definition. It might conceivably be changed again before the end of this AfD, and it is entirely permissable to !vote on the basis that it should be. James500 ( talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for the reasons given by Kaldari, & for the same reasons given in the first two deletion debates. Just because an article is encyclopedic & has lots of citations doesn't make it notable (plus, the last section in the article has nothing to do with violence against men). I'm not quite sure why the third debate had so many more comments than the first two — reeks a bit of canvassing to me. Domestic violence against men already exists, no need to have this second page — and the fact that the talk page on that article has become a forum for weird misogyny makes me quite suspicious of the motives behind creating this one. Not sure why we need to have this same conversation repeatedly. CircleAdrian ( talk) 07:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Could you please cite the "weird misogyny" you're referring to? I'm not seeing it on that talk page, and most of the discussion appears to be many years old anyway. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Cirt. NRVE says that a topic should not be deleted on grounds of notability if it is likely that adequate coverage exists. I am under the impression that there is so much literature on violence that the no one could read all of it. In view of volume of literature on violence, the breadth of the sub topic, and the fact that the distinction between men and women is an obvious one, I infer that it is likely further coverage exists. The expression "violence against men" itself seems to appear in quite a lot of sources in GBooks, GScholar and so forth. In any event, I am inclined to view the topic as inherently notable. I don't think that the analogy with an article on violence against persons aged 20 to 30 is valid, because dividing a topic into men and women, or into adults and children, is obvious, whereas the age range suggested appears arbitrary, there being, as far as I am aware, not much difference, in terms of biology or social position, between persons aged 29 and 31. I am not convinced by the "vast majority" argument either. I am not convinced, for example, that a vast majority of 78% of homicide victims is vast enough (I don't know if this figure is applicable to other forms of violence). If that number was 99%, I might think differently. In any event, I can think of sub topics that are clearly distinct from their parent topics despite forming the vast majority of their parent topics, such as the distinction between civil and criminal law. Without prejudice to the questions of notability and forking, I think this is a plausible redirect to Violence, of which it is a sub-topic. Since neither original synthesis, nor non-notability, nor unnecessary forking are, as far as I am aware, grounds for revision deletion, they are not grounds for the deletion of a plausible redirect either, so the page is not eligible for deletion on those grounds (WP:R). I think I should also point out that the correct procedure for original research is to transwiki it to Wikiversity using the import process, followed, where appropriate, by deletion under CSD A5, rather than sending it to AfD. I think that Violence against adults, mentioned in the nomination, should be redirected to Violence (without prejudice to future expansion). I don't think it is an obviously implausible topic, as there is, for example, an offence of allowing or causing the death of a vulnerable adult in England. Even the topic of violence during war isn't obviously out of the question since I am under the impression that it is quite possible to have a war without violence. In fact, at one point, it was extremely common for armies, instead of fighting each other, to engage in manouveres that I think have been described as a form of "shadow boxing" designed to bankrupt the other sides treasury. I also take the view that topics should normally be redirected to their parent topic rather than a sub-topic. A redirect to an article on domestic violence seems to imply that is the only or primary form of violence against men. James500 ( talk) 08:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I try to base my decisions on what minimizes harm to the encyclopedia, while maximizing benefit. In this instance, I see very little, if any, harm in letting this article remain. On the other hand, removal of the "Violence Against Men" while retaining "Violence Against Women" could be percieved (rightly or wrongly) as discriminatory and agenda-driven to an outside observer. It is not enough to act with integrity and without bias... one must also APPEAR to act with integrity. Particularly with a project which depends on outside voluntary funding, appearances matter, and there is alredy plenty of fodder for the "Wikipedia is biased" crowd, in the media and elsewhere, without dishing more up to them on a silver platter... that this AfD was initiated by the creator of Wikiproject Feminism would be icing on the cake we'd be serving up to some critics of the encyclopedia. In sum, the potential downsides in this instance (potential damage to the reputation of the encylopedia), outweigh the minmial upsides and benefit of removing a perhaps borderline article. Marteau ( talk) 12:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Would you please explain how the Feminism Wikiproject is relevent to this? Because I can't follow your argument at all. Haminoon ( talk) 02:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I have reviewed my statement, believe it was perfectly clear, and that it conveyed what I wanted to convey. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Marteau ( talk) 05:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I think what's obvious here is that in order to remain a standalone article, Violence against men needs to have a body of information that is both distinct from the Domestic article, and the violence in general article, and WP:N on its own. I don't think that's currently met. Simply put, and anecdotally, I don't think there's enough independent incidents of violence against men /because/ they are men. At least not yet, or not recorded with data and news coverage. Maybe that's because of the way gender differences exist in our society, and such violence DOES occur. But Wikipedia articles need sources, and they need independent notability, I don't think that's met here. It doesn't have enough standalone info to be worthy of its own page. I would be in support of a subsection of Domestic Violence against men, though I know that seems strange/badly categorized. It's the best solution I can come up with. -- Shibbolethink ( talk) 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• I am not convinced either article has to be confined to violence done to men or women because they are respectively male or female. The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines violence against women as including both violence that affects women because they are women and violence that affects women disproportionately (emphasis added). So, by that logic, presumably violence against men includes violence that affects men disproportionately, whether or not it is done because they are men. Moreover, I am not convinced that either article should not respectively include all violence that affects persons of the respective gender, since that is the respective literal meaning of both expressions. James500 ( talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep To delete the Violence against men article while maintaining the Violence against women article would be fundamentally sexist, and such an action has no place in the Wikipedia project. Misandry and misogyny are two sides of the same coin. 70.109.187.181 ( talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — 70.109.187.181 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep- In my opinion, the sources in the article demonstrate that violence against men, because of their gender, is a thing that is studied in acedemic literature. The very well sourced section on wartime sexual abuse of men make this article more than just a "domestic violence against men" fork. The article would be improved if it omitted the last section, which is off-topic, and included more material on civilian men being murdered during war time, but I see the article's only a few days old and clearly has a lot of potential to improve. Reyk _YO! 19:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • And I found a potentially useful describing both mandatory conscription and sex-selective murder of civilians as violence against men: [2]. Reyk _YO! 14:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Is this supposed to be a joke, the assertion that violence against men is not sufficiently distinct from violence in general? Jay Vogler ( talk) 21:12, 27 February 2015
• Keep UNLESS you are planning on deleting the violence against women page as well. The only reason to delete this page would be pure bigotry.

(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum Henderson ( talk • contribs) — Calum Henderson ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• '"Keep'" extreme feminism will end .... it will take the form of implosion as all neo nazi movements do ... there is no such thing as domestic violence as domestic is an adjective. ... adjectives cannot be laws ... there is either violence or no violence present ... the term domestic is political and used by politicians to get elected and also used by corporate conglomerates to advertise to women who account for spending over 70% disposable household income ...if Wikipedia is complicit in this then it must expect the same outcome as the extremists it would be supporting ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeescouser ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — Yankeescouser ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Umm, you're really losing me with that train of thought. The question here isn't what you think about feminism, the question is whether this topic is encyclopedic and notable under GNG. Carrite ( talk) 00:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Coming from the same editor who closed the discussion on the previous AfD for this article, and who coincidentally is also the creator of Wikiproject Feminism, this smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. If the genders were reversed, would any of this discussion be happening? Seems to me like it would be a snowball keep with people reporting the filer to ANI. Which I wouldn't agree with either way, but. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Many of those advocating for deletion here seem to be claiming that the article is WP:SYNTH. Exactly what conclusions are stated in the article that are not directly supported by the citations? Also, this page serves a vital organizational role, as it's the main page for a significant Category:Violence_against_men. The number of articles in that category, alone, along with the variety of subject matter, ought to establish the notability of the subject. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 16:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• @ Haminoon: It is hypocritical on your part to complain about the personal attacks of others, while liberally applying SPA tags. The only real purpose of such tagging is to discredit the opinions of others. Per WP:SPATG, my edits "within a broad topic" do not make me an SPA; and anyway as I am editing from an IP and do not have a Wikipedia account I am clearly not an SPA, or indeed any A at all. As for your edit summary, I see nothing in the policy which requires making mainspace edits to avoid the charge, anyway. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 03:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Note: The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/violenceagainstwomen has been created by User:Calum Henderson, who has also put an AFD notice at the top of the article Violence against women. This strikes me as a more than a bit WP:POINTy, but I'm bringing it to folks' attention because it doesn't seem to be showing up on the AFD log for today ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 27). EastTN ( talk) 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Note to closer - It looks like someone has posted this to an MRA board, which I guess was inevitable. Most of the previous 8 comments appear to be from anons or SPAs and should probably either be removed or ignored. Kaldari ( talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Isn't the above an ad-hominem attack? 208.53.116.168 ( talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You can't pick and choose which comments to ignore based on your own personal bias. We're all users of Wikipedia and all have an equal say, regardless of our backgrounds. None of these comments should be removed or ignored. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 01:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

To be clear, is it really your argument here that, when considering the status of an article about hardships experienced by men, the opinions of activists who specifically advocate for the rights of men should be ignored, because of their advocacy? But feminist points of view should not be subject to the same treatment? I am not an MRA and have no idea what "board" you have in mind, but I don't understand why anyone would call for those views to be summarily dismissed. If you suspect WP:CANVASsing, that's another matter, but one that could do with some evidence.

Per the template header on the edit form: All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. It is explicitly not policy to "remove or ignore" comments here, although the closer should indeed be aware that this is not a vote. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 05:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note to Kaldari - I'm an infrequent chemistry editor who recently decided it was worth an account, not a men's-rights (or anyone's-rights) editor. I've responded to this proposal in the same way as I would respond to someone attempting to delete the Violence against women article because it's no different from violence in general. This is a joke. Jay Vogler ( talk) 21:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Even if we assume that to be true, I fail to see why comments by some editors should be deemed worthless just because they subscribe to a movement opposing your ideology. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. -- 386-DX ( talk) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

It looks like this has also been posted on 8chan's Gamergate board. This just went from bad to worse. -- Bikemaster9 ( talk) 05:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

And looking at the post timers, it's quite likely that it was posted over there by you. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 05:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, feel free to shoot the messenger... I just thought everyone should be aware that this is being WP:Canvassed by misogynists with an exe to grind. -- Bikemaster9 ( talk) 12:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's an archived snapshot of the thread (disable Javascript, web.archive.org is getting stupid these days; alternatively view archive(dot)today/HXrY8). Just like Wikipedia, this site runs on UTC, and this thread was created at 03/01/15 (Sun) 04:09:37 by someone with an ID (which is actually an IP address hash) of 0be51b. Throughout the thread, 0be51b only makes five posts, and at sporadic time intervals.

Are you telling me that you "accidentally stumbled" across such a post on a niche website which struggles to rank on Alexa, less than one hour after the thread was created, and then spent the time to create an SPA account at 04:58 1 March 2015, to report on the travesty at 05:10 1 March 2015? Keep in mind that as of present (March 2, 1:00PM UTC+11), Googlebot has yet to trawl the page (the site's robots.txt does allow search engine trawling) which means that the page does not show up in a google search. In addition, at 245 posts per hour, we're talking about a pretty fast board here, which raises doubts on an "accidental" discovery. In other words, you yourself would have been a patron of the site prior to "finding" the thread.

Furthermore, do a CTRL+F for the ID "0be51b", and notice how exactly 6 minutes after your post here on Wikipedia, the thread creator makes a WP:BATTLEGROUND-baiting post in reference to it (despite being largely inactive for the prior hour)? In addition, when your shenanigans are called out by another user, the thread creator writes at 06:35:33, quote, "FUCK YOU MRA!" (post No.420205).

You created that thread, with the intention of affecting the outcome of this AfD discussion. By pointing out the thread (keep in mind that few people in the thread are even agreeing with the thread poster, and have even been encouraging others NOT to participate), it seems like an attempt by you to convince participants of this discussion that there is a state of emergency. In other words, this was a false flag operation from the very beginning. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 02:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Citing "a large body of theory and research devoted to this as a distinct phenomenon." doesn't mean that any other subject should be dismissed. Further "As the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by and against men," would seem to be an argument for keeping it rather than dismissing it as irrelevant. Obviously, if it's the most likely form of violence, it makes sense to keep and expand on the article. Moreover, as opposed to Violence Against Women, the lack of theory and research devoted to the most prevalent form of violence appears to be a gross oversight. I'm sure there are plenty of resources to pull from, in reality. The notion that violence against women is a "phenomenon" indicates that it isn't a very specific type of violence and that violence against men is not, as if violence towards women was unnatural but violence towards men is natural. I have to disagree with this mischaracterization and agree with the other proponents that this would be a form of discrimination and will appear incredibly biased. Yhufir ( talk) 23:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)— Yhufir ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep - The fact that a topic is encyclopedic and has lots of references does indeed mean that it is notable in WP terms, per GNG. I suggest that Domestic violence against women/Violence against women and Domestic violence against men/Violence against men be brought into some sort of structural symmetry. But as for deletion, the only possible grounds here is that the topic is a fork and I feel that it is not — domestic violence being a subset of violence, which also includes such things as castration and prison rape. Carrite ( talk) 00:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: Since it is clear to me by the WP:Single purpose accounts weighing in on this discussion that editors (very likely men's rights editors, who, if they are IPs, also very likely have registered Wikipedia accounts) have been WP:Canvassed to this discussion, I have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force to this debate. I am also tempted to alert WP:Feminism, but enough WP:Feminism editors watch the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force talk page. Besides, someone else might alert WP:Feminism anyway. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Update: An IP alerted WP:Feminism. Given the obvious inappropriate WP:Canvassing that has gone on regarding this deletion debate (despite my hope that this deletion debate would close quietly without such disruption), it is tainted, and editors might want to alert Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation of this matter, which I might very well do, if no one beats me to it first. I have also alerted WP:Med of this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• If you are worried about WP:CANVASsing here and consider it a bad thing, why is your response to "alert" two other WikiProjects about it? (And why do you imagine that the Gamergate discretionary sanctions are relevant?) 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

It is fruitless arguing with me about this, unless you take me to be stupid. Any experienced Wikipedia editor who can recognize inappropriate WP:Canvassing knows that inappropriate WP:Canvassing has gone on in this case. For example, the inappropriate WP:Canvassing noted in this discussion, where men's rights editors tried to get me sanctioned. And in cases like these, it is common sense to notify the relevant WikiProjects or pages (or specific editors like Sonicyouth86 and Binksternet) that can, or will try to, do something about it. You know, balance things out. Much like SarekOfVulcan helped to balance things out when he closed this silly retaliation WP:AfD. And anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions knows what it has to do with men's rights topics, especially when editors involved with the Gamergate controversy article are voting "Keep" in this discussion. So, yes, at WP:Med, I noted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions. Do find an editor who is not stupid if you want to debate. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh, and editors should not overlook this WP:Canvassing admission. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Not in the least bit productive. Drmies ( talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Single Purpose Accounts here are obvious, and any good closer would notice that and weigh what they have to say appropriately. You did more than "alert" the Gender Gap Task Force to it, you invited them here to "weigh in". That was more than "balance things out" as you phrase it. Presumably, your action will result in established editors taking you up on your invitation. Inviting participation is fine, but when the invitation is selective, as yours was, it becomes canvassing which is what you have engaged in. Two wrongs do not "balance" anything out, and combatting canvassing by canvassing is completely inappropriate and a violation of the guidelines. Combat canvassing by exposing it, not by engaging in it. Marteau ( talk) 17:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply The inappropriate WP:Canvassing goes deeper in this case, since it's not just a matter of obvious WP:Single purpose accounts weighing in. And there was nothing inappropriate about my WP:Canvassing; I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, which is watched by feminists, men's rights editors, pro and anti-Gamergate editors (among other types of editors), and I notified WP:Med. Completely appropriate WP:Canvassing, as is clear by the WP:Canvassing guideline; it's a common misconception that all WP:Canvassing is disallowed. Stating "Surely, everyone (or almost everyone) here will be interested in weighing in on this fourth Violence against men deletion discussion.", as I did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, is not inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Neither is noting WP:Canvassing, as I did at WP:Med. Save your lessons on Wikipedia ways for someone who does not understand them. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply I do not appreciate the snark, and I do not intend to "debate" you, but to call your behaviour into question. I don't understand why you apparently think your canvassing is appropriate, but that of others is not. I also don't understand how you figure that men's rights editors tried to get [you] sanctioned - I see a single editor complaining about harassment on your part, and then someone else jumping in with a link to off-site discussion of the incident report. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's common for Redditors to observe Wikipedia drama from a distance; and if anyone expresses displeasure at how things are going, there is no real reason to believe there is any deliberate canvassing going on - it's just people speaking their minds. Reddit is, after all, fundamentally a discussion forum. As for Gamergate, no, I do not know "what it has to do with men's rights topics" because it does not have anything to do with men's rights topics. Trying to Google for any evidence of Gamergate being a men's rights topic does not uncover MRAs claiming that it is. It does, however, uncover pundits trying to compare the representation of MRAs in popular media to that of gamers, as well as feminists trying to associate Gamergate with the MRM on very specious evidence. It is unsurprising that there would be some overlap in these audiences, due to feminist-critical (or even outright anti-feminist) sentiment; but the MRM is not simply anti-feminism. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply I don't care what you appreciate. And except for the fact that Redditors watch Wikipedia and that there is overlap between Redditors and men's rights editors, your rebuttal is silliness. For example, my WP:Canvassing is appropriate for reasons outlined at the WP:Canvassing guideline. It outlines what is appropriate and inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Mine does not at all fall within the inappropriate WP:Canvassing context. Like I stated, "Do find an editor who is not stupid if you want to debate." Flyer22 ( talk) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply You might also want to change up your editing style when editing as an IP; non-changes easily give away which registered Wikipedia editors IPs are. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Regarding this edit pointing to a WP:Canvassing thread, which further shows how some Gamergate editors are concerned with men's rights topics, and vice versa, one of them states, "WP:CANVAS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a big WP:BOOMERANG if they find this thread. They can claim that everyone disagreeing with them is a Gamergater from 8chan and use that as an excuse to ban them like they did with Toku. If you're going to go to war in a controversial section, don't start by giving the other side a plate of ammo." LOL!! Anyone with decent Google skills can find the other WP:Canvassed threads as well. Someone should go ahead and close this joke of a WP:AfD, and only because of the mass tainting. As usual, men's rights editors and some pro-Gamergaters (hmm, "Gamergaters"?) cannot win arguments without mass WP:Canvassing, and are obvious as the sky with their WP:Canvassing. But then again, I suppose they have to WP:Canvass because of how supposedly gynocentric Wikipedia is. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Are you seriously going to use an obvious false flag by whoever made that thread post in an attempt to silence and ignore users like me and many others who are here, within this discussion, from genuine reasons? For the record, I arrived here following your post at WP:MED, which I have on my watchlist. Many long-term Wikipedians here likely arrived from similar noticeboards (e.g. AfD noticeboard, WP countering systemic bias), and probably don't appreciate what you're writing right now. We don't close a thread because it's tainted by SPAs, we simply ignore the SPAs and weigh the discussion based on arguments rather than numbers, like how it's always been. Just so you know, anyone can make an anonymous post on the internet, and unless you have access to the IP logs, you can't determine that simply who is writing what. -- benlisquare T• C• E 07:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Boo! I stand by my "06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post because, among other things, it addresses the obvious inappropriate WP:Canvassing, whether we consider that so-called bait thread or not. Now...I'm going to go back to eating my popcorn while I watch this mess unfold. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply If you're going to backpedal away from an obviously outrageous proposal to close the discussion, at least retract it. -- benlisquare T• C• E 08:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Also, look at the "many long-term Wikipedians[']" edit histories; the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are... Well, let's just state you are incorrect to believe that most of editors in this deletion debate landed here via appropriate means. Flyer22 ( talk) 08:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply You're being unconstructive here. Why not use a simple mechanism to determine who should and shouldn't be here? If they have <50 edits OR made their account within the past 72 hours, their opinion is given less weight, and if they don't meet this criteria, it's business as usual? Why are you so intent on being deceptive about who's participating in this discussion? It's a very cheap ploy, and it's an unconstuctive attitude to have on a collaborative encyclopedia project. Turn on WP:POPUPS, and notice that there are plenty of genuine Wikipedians here. -- benlisquare T• C• E 08:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Your defense of this mess is unconstructive. And that you cannot recognize barely-there editors, including WP:Dormant accounts suddenly popping up for this deletion debate, is something I chalk up to your inexperience with these matters. And minutes ago, I just noticed your "backpedal away" post; I'm not backpedaling away from anything; stating "I stand by my '06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)' post" is the exact opposite of backpedaling. If you want to defend the poor rationales to keep the Violence against men article, and the obvious barely-there editors, it would be better for you to find a different editor to preach to. Flyer22 ( talk) 08:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Since you're too lazy to back up your claims with proof, let me do it for you. Keep (Long-term Wikipedians): Cirt (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 181291 edits); James500 (autoreviewer, reviewer, 26581 edits); Marteau (reviewer, rollbacker, 3368 edits since: 2003-03-23); Reyk (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 17294 edits since: 2005-09-05); Carrite (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 55012 edits); Topbanana (sysop, 68032 edits); Benlisquare (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 41604 edits); BabbaQ (34633 edits); Ruby2010 (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 31629 edits); Doc James (eponline, sysop, captcha-exempt, 123220 edits); George100 (10740 edits since: 2006-03-05) Keep (Likely canvassed): Westside12345 (8 edits); 70.109.187.181; Jay Vogler (18 edits since: 2014-12-17); Calum Henderson (16 edits); Yankeescouser (3 edits); 76.64.13.4; Yhufir (4 edits); TheWaters (8 edits); Grillmaster423 (91 edits); Andelocks (13 edits); 208.54.38.224; Deep Purple Dreams (240 edits); Akesgeroth (80 edits); 88.107.70.141; 31.51.3.181; 58.7.81.106; 216.73.201.25 Keep (Borderline, needs further analysis): MeanMotherJr (1308 edits since: 2011-12-29); 386-DX (924 edits since: 2006-12-13); Mr.Random (1045 edits since: 2006-01-04); Yurivict (2290 edits since: 2004-12-11) Delete (Everybody): CircleAdrian (700 edits); Shibbolethink (191 edits since: 2014-08-18); EvergreenFir (reviewer, rollbacker, 25759 edits); Alexbrn (17645 edits); Johnuniq (reviewer, rollbacker, templateeditor, 32204 edits); Fyddlestix (1285 edits); The Four Deuces (reviewer, rollbacker, 30452 edits); 67.78.248.206 Are you going to continue to feign ignorance and extend the drama? You are literally putting your emotional reaction above your logical decision making. -- benlisquare T• C• E 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply (The above comment has been inappropriately refactored by User:Seth Forsman PhD at 16:45, 1 March 2015‎. Refer to the revision history for a permalink to the original comment. -- benlisquare T• C• E 17:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)) reply You still show your inexperience on this matter. I looked at each one of the WP:Single purpose accounts' and barely-there editors' edit histories before your inaccurate "09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post above. I essentially stated that the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed; they are inappropriately WP:Canvassed. And by "Wikipedians," I mean the IPs in addition to the WP:Single purpose accounts and other barely-there editors. You should become more familiar with what WP:Single purpose accounts and WP:Dormant accounts are and how they operate. You can learn from the WP:Dormant accounts I pointed to in my "16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)" post above. The number of years an editor has been registered with Wikipedia and/or that Wikipedian's edit count can mean nothing in such cases. For example, we have editors who have been registered with Wikipedia for years, but are essentially WP:Newbies because of their sporadic editing that has been spread between years, as in this case. Look at some of these accounts that have similar edit histories. I am not feigning ignorance; I am speaking from knowledge/experience. You are either feigning ignorance or simply don't know what you are talking about. You are also extending drama by trying to school me, when you are the one who needs to be schooled on matters such as these. And if I'm putting my "emotional reaction above [...] logical decision making," so are you. But then again, I am going on logic because I am noting the massive WP:Canvassing that has gone in this deletion debate, and that this deletion debate is a joke because of the rationales given for keeping the Violence against men article and because of the massive WP:Canvassing. Again, "If you want to defend the poor rationales to keep the Violence against men article, and the obvious barely-there editors, it would be better for you to find a different editor to preach to." You are wasting your time debating with me. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what? Ignore them, and only pay attention to the arguments of those who are long-term regulars here, and I assure you, there are still plenty of them around here. Earlier on, you claimed that very few people here were genuine editors and the majority were SPAs/dormant accounts, a claim which was complete nonsense. "You are wasting your time debating with me" - in other words, "lalala, I can't hear you"? I've made my points perfectly clear. It is dishonest to state that a discussion should be closed because SPAs have taken part, because it is unfair on those editors who are here with honest intentions. I assure you, the closing admin is not stupid, and he won't fall for a bunch of nobodies who have barely any presence on Wikipedia, so you really have no reason to become overly concerned over this like you currently are. -- benlisquare T• C• E 09:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply "your inaccurate ... post above" Explain how it's inaccurate, pray tell. The figures are precisely accurate, up to that exact point in time, and taken directly from the site itself. I based my judgement on who is and isn't an SPA based on how much total edits they had, and what kind of user privileges they have. You have claimed that I am wrong, yet you do not elaborate on how you come to that conclusion. -- benlisquare T• C• E 09:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply You stated, "There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what?" Well, that's one reason why I can't take you seriously. You stated, "Earlier on, [I] claimed that very few people here were genuine editors." No, I stated that the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed. That is different wording. But, regardless... That the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are inappropriately WP:Canvassed does indeed make it so that the significant majority of editors in this deletion debate are not genuine editors. You still don't know what you are talking about. My interaction with you is not a matter of "lalala, I can't hear you." It's a matter of "lalala, I know more than you. Move on now." And do stop with your "overly concerned" mess. Either way, I now know to avoid you in the future. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Narcissism has no place on a collaborative project. -- benlisquare T• C• E 09:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply And now you have added on to your post in a way that completely misses the point of my "09:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post. Sigh. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Rather than brushing me off with a snarky attitude, again, I'd like you to explain how Cirt, James500, Marteau, Reyk, Carrite, Topbanana, myself, BabbaQ, Ruby2010, Doc James and George100 should not have their opinions taken into account. This time without the "I'm better than you, by the way here's a bunch of WP links that you've probably already read" wall of text. -- benlisquare T• C• E 10:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply I'm familiar with some of those editors, and I respect their opinions (the ones I'm familiar with and know to be good editors); Cirt and Doc James know that I respect theirs. But the keep votes in this deletion debate hold no weight...for reasons others have made clear in this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Let the closing admin decide then. That's fair, right? If these editors have great arguments, then great. If these editors have poor arguments, then great. There is no reason to prematurely close the discussion. -- benlisquare T• C• E 10:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply And yet again. If narcissism has no place on Wikipedia, calling someone a narcissist surely does not. But, from what I've seen of your behavior here, at WP:Med, and occasionally elsewhere, you are no one good to collaborate with. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Well aren't you the pot calling the kettle black. Not only can't you accept that someone disagrees with you, you need to resort to taking others out of context in order to debate them. For instance, "There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what?" was not the end of my point, yet you cherrypicked those exact sentences to make it as if I'm carefree towards editors disrupting Wikiipedia en-masse. You refuse to get the point, and choose to selectively read what other people write. At least the closing admin now has plenty reason to think twice about anything he reads, thanks for your help. -- benlisquare T• C• E 10:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply I call the kettle black sometimes. Not in this case. The rest of your summary of me is so absurd, and applies your behaviors to me (for example, inaccurately presenting what someone stated), that it doesn't deserve a response. And, yes, your rambling, drawing even more attention to the WP:Canvassing has, in my opinion, worked out well. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply I would probably be a bit more forgiving in my responses to you if you weren't so condescending. It is unfortunate that the atmosphere has soured to this state, I guess neither of us are willing to compromise on our points. At this point in time, the best decision would be to leave it to the rest of the community. -- benlisquare T• C• E 10:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Note to Benlisquare - I have removed my name from your list twice now. I do not give you permission to slander my name, and will revert any attempt to re-add it to your list. Further attempts to add it to that list will result in administrator action. If you wish to discuss this matter, you can use my talk page. Thank you. This issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply While appreciating the attempt to quantify things, this is fairly crap evidence either way since I'm listed as "obviously canvassed" but wasn't. This bizarre assumption that only people with thousands of edits care about Wikipedia content is the reason it took me so long to create an account in the first place. Jay Vogler ( talk) 21:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply I have not been canvassed and am offended by the suggestion. I found this discussion on my own. Please do not cast aspersions. I am also offended by the implication of "not being a real Wikipedian". This nonsense is the kind of thing that ensures my continued refusal to get an account. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply Everyone who's been hinted at potentially being canvassed, when given the chance, will deny the allegation. You cannot deny that most people would do this, and if I were also someone with a 2 month old account and 17 edits, I would do the same. The issue is, how can you demonstrate to everyone that you weren't? It's very difficult to, and given the dire circumstances of this discussion, leniency works to a disadvantage. Why are people all of a sudden coming over here to weigh in, if they aren't being canvassed? You might take offense, but it does appear extremely suspicious when an editor with 20 edits from 2007 suddenly shows up. -- benlisquare T• C• E 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply The problem with that logic is that the burden of proof rests on the accuser to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence. Suspicion is not proof. If it was, courts wouldn't exist. That's why those speaking out against your list have been doing so. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 02:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply In that case I guess you should convince Flyer22 that you're all here on genuine terms, since she's the one who believes that the majority of you are WP:Dormant accounts brought here by request. I don't have as much of a huge gripe, and the purpose of that rough list was to make a point to Flyer22, not to specifically segregate users into definite categories. Her argument is that because you people are present, the discussion should be closed. -- benlisquare T• C• E 03:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply the testosterone-doped crocodile tears over the "unfairness" of this AfD are killing me. ridiculous and so sad, all at the same time. Jytdog ( talk) 03:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (strike stupidity Jytdog ( talk) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)) reply Here's your desired response. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply i am an idiot. for real. apologies to all. Jytdog ( talk) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as mostly SYNTH and OR. Violence_against_men#Violent_crime, Violence_against_men#Self-directed_violence, and Violence_against_men#Sexual_violence are entirely OR/SYNTH. Violence_against_men#Are_men_inherently_violent.3F is COATRACK and actually about male violence, not violence against men. There's nothing worth keeping if those are removed, so NUKEANDPAVE. I will add discussion about Violence against women is WP:OTHERSTUFF, and ignores the fact that that topic is internationally notable (e.g., Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women). The encyclopedia is not about parity, it's about reflecting notability and reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• WP:N has never required that topics be international, so that isn't really an argument against this article. We normally accept national topics, and often sub-national ones. OTHERSTUFF is an essay, and it admits that such arguments may not always be devoid of merit. That essay is primarily concerned with arguments that an article should not be deleted because similar articles, which may also be invalid, have not yet been deleted; the essay might not be applicable where the similar article is admitted to be valid. James500 ( talk) 09:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Notability still not established and entire article is still SYNTH. NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Since the article has changed so much, I'm reaffirming my delete suggestion. The main issue now is the topic/scope. The article needs to be about violence against men because they are men, not violence against people who happen to be men. Compare to violence against women where it says, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive. So far that primary motive have not been established in general and on the few instances where it is, that material is best kept in their respective articles. There is no academic or political acknowledgement of violence against men as a social problem or much of anything that talks about men as targets of crimes because they are men (again, compare to violence against women and the international recognition of the problem). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Comparing this article to a similar article is OR. This article is not a comparison to violence against women. USchick ( talk) 19:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The argument that violence against men is not different enough from violence as a whole is strange, as it is arguing that some violence is more noteworthy than others. This may be true from a societal viewpoint, but not from an academic viewpoint. The objective and equal distinction is that violence is an umbrella that covers many topics, including articles such as: violence against specific groups, the societal/evolutionary advantages and disadvantages of violence, the causes of violence, and other narrower topics. Just because a narrow field is not heavily researched does not mean that it should be deleted or assumed under it's overarching topic. To me, that means the article should be left up so it can be edited and changed as more information becomes available. TheWaters ( talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — TheWaters ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep The larger issue here has less to do with the article, but rather who initiated the "deletion". Not to discount the vast amount of Wiki-related projects Kaldari has contributed to, but it would appear that Kaldari - OFFICIALLY RETIRED - credits themselves with creating a Feminism WikiProject. There is a clearly a conflict of interest. It would be like the creator of National Association of Police Organizations calling for the deletion of Police brutality. Hogwash.

Has "Violence against men" been researched extensively as the converse? Of course not.

But calling for the deletion of a subject with which the usurper may or may not have personal issues with is both callous and a form of censorship. In principal, such philosophy flies against Wikipedia's expressed purpose. Grillmaster423 ( talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Please discuss the merits of the article, and don't attack the nominator. Same goes for all of you who are accusing the nominator of bias or bigotry. Reyk _YO! 07:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I completely agree that this subject should be discussed on its own merit and not the people discussing it, however, that's a two-way street. Both sides need to refrain from attacking those discussing here. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 12:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is not in any way a conflict of interest. Haminoon ( talk) 07:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep "The motives for violence against women are similar to the motives for violence against men: to gain control or retribution and to promote or defend self-image. The motives play a role in almost all violence, regardless of gender." ^[1] I believe this article could be improved to better dictate the key points specific to violence against men that aren't domestic violence specific, but delete it all together would silence important dialogue pertaining to an issue that is becoming more and more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andelocks ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — Andelocks ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete. Synthetic (possibly tendentious) topic that lacks on-point sourcing and so fails WP:GNG. This leads to the embarrassment of an article we currently have containing the tortuous illiterate & illogical, e.g.: "In armed conflict, sexual violence is committed by men against men as psychological warfare in order to humiliate the enemy. ^{citation needed}". Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 08:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Non partisan on this subject; a few minutes clicking through the references in the article made it clear (to me at least) that there are distinct patterns of violence against men, and that these have been the subject of study by both academic and government groups - the topic is notable. - TB ( talk) 08:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable WP:SYNTH with the subtext that there is no such thing as Violence against women because (it is claimed) everyone has violence perpetrated against them, and violence against females is matched by the same violence against males. Only trouble is, there are no authoritative secondary sources making that claim. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• I genuinely do not understand how you are extracting that subtext. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete While the topic is notable and there should be proper sources to build an article without resorting to synthesizing facts it currently stands as an extremely poor mix of general statistics and poorly sourced statements. The article falls under WP:SYNTH, although it is possible to improve it I support deleting it in its current format. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 10:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Advocating that articles on "notable" topics that are "possible to improve" be deleted... Astounding. Simply astounding. Were that philosophy extended to the encylopedia as a whole, we would not HAVE an encylopedia. Marteau ( talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You misunderstand, most likely deliberately. None of the content in the current article is appropriate, and slimming down the article to the single sentence of value that would persist: "Violence against men is violence against men" is grounds enough for deletion. Rather if the article were to be recreated it would require the use of the extensive sociological, anthropological and psychological literature that is available, instead of using io9 sensationalist nonsense combined with random statistics. Even a notable topic needs to at least reach stub status to be included in Wikipedia. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 13:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I misunderstand nothing. The fact is, you admit the topic is notable, you admit there is information available to improve it, you admit it can be improved, yet rather than give it a little time to improve, you advocate its outright deletion. That is, as I said, astounding. Marteau ( talk) 13:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes you do. Articles may be deleted for lack of content, regardless of whether they have potential to be improved. I do not oppose having the article, simply having such an abysmal article as was this one in its previous state. Some of my concerns have been dealt with, but I still stand behind that without the improvements it should have been deleted. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 13:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE all say that we don't delete an article on a valid topic because of content issues that can be fixed through normal editing. James500 ( talk) 14:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Though this topic has always been surrounded by controversy, both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, it's a topic that we're going to have to deal with as long as one can establish notability. Based on the coverage amongst third-party publications, I'm inclined to believe that this is a valid topic. The article content may not be as good as one would hope, but that in itself shouldn't be a reason for deletion. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 10:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep: - controversial articles does not equal deletion. Clearly notable article. Period.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 11:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep and Improve I ran across this when checking the GGTF to see if anyone replied to a notice of an article that I placed on Jimbo's talk page about the toxic editing atmosphere and how we might improve it. Sounds like a crusade to eliminate something that does noes not reflect a political POV. Violence against men is real and destructive to families. The notion that this is not a big deal is purely political. Not having an article on this is not improving but harming the encyclopedia. The violence against women is destructive to families and I would say keep that if it ever came up. 208.54.38.224 ( talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — 208.54.38.224 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep - Obviously notable topic with clearly reliable sources. Deep Purple Dreams ( talk) 14:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per James500's logic above. This topic clearly is notable under GNG (see this search for example). Obviously the article needs improvement but that's no reason to delete. I'd say more but am writing on phone. Ruby 2010/ 2013 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You understand that nearly all the hits in the search you linked to do not include the phrase "violence against men"? Haminoon ( talk) 22:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

He neglected to quote the search phrase. Try this. Marteau ( talk) 22:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Well sourced and relevant topic. I fail to see why this should be deleted when articles about dubious concepts such as mansplaining or otherkin are tolerated. Akesgeroth ( talk) 16:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep - Informative and well sourced topic with plenty of room to expand, as issues of male focused problems such as these are growing in interest among the scientific community. There's no valid reason to delete this topic, and doing so would only further bring into question ulterior motives and welcome accusations of parties involved. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Well thought out and relevant article. Why is this even being considered? One of your editors is a well known militant feminist with strong anti-male views. That is the ONLY reason this is being considered. Violence against men is considerably more prevalent than any other type of violence and this is just one more example of the anti-male bias in the media. If you allow a militant feminist to edit articles like this, she will do anything to get her views across, but I cannot allow my gender to be marginalised like this. How dare you even think about removing this article? 88.107.70.141 ( talk) 18:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — 88.107.70.141 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Please refrain from personal attacks. There is absolutely no evidence one of the editors has "strong anti-male views". Haminoon ( talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep - There are some serious questions here on the motivation of the petitioner considering what can be perceived to be a conflict of interest. I would even call WP:NOTHERE as Wikipedia is not a forum for gender 'disputes' from individuals despite certain people and WIKI:FEMINISM continuously moving outside of their scope and remit to attack articles covering the problems men face. 31.51.3.181 ( talk) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — 31.51.3.181 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

There have been absolutely no serious questions about the petitioner's motivations so far. Haminoon ( talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

It's been brought up many times here that the user who has brought this article up for deletion has a conflict of interest due to his/her personal views. While personal attacks should not be welcome (which the user you responded to here has thankfully refrained from), these motives should be considered. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Yeah its been brought up, but there has been no serious questions and no evidence of a conflict of interest. I don't see what motives there are to be considered. The nominator's opening statement if clearly argued and can stand on its own. Haminoon ( talk) 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I feel that you stating that there's been no serious questions is disingenuous. You may disagree with the claims, but I can assure you that those who have brought her motives into question take it very seriously. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Not serious enough to produce any evidence. I'm still waiting to see evidence of the editor's "strong anti-male views" and "conflict of interest". It sounds more like personal attacks than "serious questions" to me. Haminoon ( talk) 00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The evidence has already been produced in this discussion several times over. Again, I feel you're being disingenuous. If you are not being willfully ignorant, though, and have instead legitimately missed these points, I strongly urge you to go back and read these comments. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Are you referring to creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism? That's evidence of nothing. The argument is specious and a thinly-veiled personal attack. Its like saying someone who edits punk articles shouldn't edit disco articles. Haminoon ( talk) 02:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, it would be like the creator of National Association of Police Organizations, championing police, calling for the deletion of Police brutality, a page portraying police in a negative light. Or neo-Nazis calling for the deletion of the Holocaust page.. For someone who cares enough to create a whole project championing a specific gender's rights and then calls for the DELETION of a page which intimately concerns the opposite gender. Any user who calls for DELETION of any active page should and always will have their motives questioned. Grillmaster423 ( talk) 02:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Exactly what Grillmaster423 said. The claim that these concerns are just "specious" and "a thinly-veiled personal attack" are flat out false and nothing more than a flippant personal attack in and of itself in a vain attempt to discredit differing opinion. These concerns of the submitter's background and motives are very relevant and very important to the discussion at hand and need to be taken into serious consideration. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 16:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

A Wikipedia article should be neutral, not "championing" its subject. People who don't understand this shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. ~~ Haminoon ( talk) 21:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

That's precisely why "Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism" should be deleted. Shakespeare Monkey ( talk) 03:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Objecting to the existence of a perfectly viable WikiProject has no business in an AfD (or anywhere else). Please stop this battleground behavior right now.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: There exist several instances where violence against men is exclusive of other types of violence.

For instance, in the US, Police shoot and kill men at a much higher ratio than they do women. According to a Mother Jones article of arrest-related deaths, there were "4,594 arrest-related deaths of men in 2003-2009, versus :218 for women. In other words, 95% of those deaths are of men, 19 times more than women."

Other instances of violence specifically directed at men is with the recruitment of child soldiers of Africa. The violence is unique because the perpetrators turn their victims into lifellong instigators of the violence as :well.

Psychological violence has been conducted on men to a much higher degree in the military, where males were and are frequently subjected to a higher degree of verbal and physical abuse than their female counterparts.

Sexual violence against men has been conducted during medevil times with the flaying of Eunuch

Domestic violence against men is also an issue ( Lorena Bobbit dismembered husband's genitals, Andrea Yates killed her and husband's five children - 4 boys and 1 girl.).

Prison violence in the form of sexual abuse has been perpetrated by female guards against male inmates.

Social violence against men as in when extreme feminists attempt to censor very real subjects on the sole basis of their own biases. Then when their own personal biases are called into question, decry sexism.

The list is ongoing. Granted, the topic is not well researched, but it does indeed have definable parameters of "specific types" of violent actions conducted against men - explicitly. Grillmaster423 ( talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I hope you do some more reading on child soldiers in Africa and feminism before you attempt to add any of this to the article. Haminoon ( talk) 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am not seeing an issue. It provides symmetry to violence against women Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nominator, Shibbolethink, and others. Insufficient reliable sources that treat "violence against men" (as distinct from violence in general, or domestic violence in general) to justify an article on this subject. Fyddlestix ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per "Blow it up". Possibly there is an article, but the current article is just a mishmash. If a subject exists in reliable sources then an editor can recreate it. But that task is made easier by deleting an article that cannot be improved. TFD ( talk) 02:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• You can do something "based on the advice given by" WP:BLOWITUP, however you cannot do something "per" WP:BLOWITUP. It's a personal essay, not a guideline or policy. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 05:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• It is consistent with reason 14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia." Tendentious OR is not suitable content. TFD ( talk) 08:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep This title can cover other types of specific violence targeting men as well, like Enforced Conscription and Circumcision 58.7.81.106 ( talk) 03:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment The main issue here should be WP:GNG, but the nomination makes no attempt to explain why this topic isn't notable. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 03:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep As long as the article Violence against women exists, then this article too has a right to exist, if you are willing to have this article deleted, than the other article too, should be deleted, unless your definition of "equality" means being extremely unequal and one-sided, but that has no place on an encyclopedia 216.73.201.25 ( talk) 03:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is no issue here; the article is about violence done specifically to men because they are men. MeanMotherJr ( talk) 04:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Question How did we manage to create an article on this without mentioning violence against gay men? The word gay appears only in a navbox. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• That sounds like an improvement that should be made to the article, especially if there are sources that show that there is more violence against gay men than gay women (I strongly suspect that this is true, but I haven't researched it myself). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article meets the notability criteria. It clearly lists and exemplifies several types of violence largely and specifically affecting men, all with reliable sources. I don't agree with the OR/SYNTH argument either. The referenced sources clearly identify and distinguish the types of violence directed towards men in particular. Surely there is room for improvement, but that goes true for most Wikipedia articles. -- 386-DX ( talk) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep per Cirt, Grillmaster, et al. TFD may have a point about WP:BLOWITUP, but I don't think the page is completely irredeemable. Random ^(?) 06:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I'm seeing a lot of !votes (mostly from IP users) based solely on perspectives of sexism, and not on WP principles like WP:RS and WP:V (e.g., "keep because we have a 'violence against women' article" and "delete because sexism against men doesn't exist"). I strongly suspect that the canvassing is to blame; in any case, is there anything that can be done about this? I'm a bit rusty. Random ^(?) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment There are a number of reliable sources available that can be used to write an article on violence against men. However, the article that we currently have has serious issues with original research and synthesis. If kept, the article will need to be substantially edited to bring it in line with Wikipedia policy. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Since I've posted the above comment, a lot of the original research has been removed and better sourced sections have been added in. I was leaning towards moving to draft-space, but I think the article has been cleaned up enough to stay in article space. I therefore vote Keep. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 00:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete "Against" means in opposition too, or in opposite direction. How can men be in opposition or contrary to their own actions? Since most violence 'suffered by men' is indeed caused by men we can't possibly have an article violence against men centered around cherry picked statistics about male vs male violence. I suggest deleting this article since men are not under any threat nor victims of gender inspired violence an coercion. Therefore there is no need to have such a provoking politically incorrect article on wikipedia giving it unearned legitimacy. As quote Anita Sarkesian a foremost expert in the field "There's no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." — Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) November 15, 2014. 67.78.248.206 ( talk) 07:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — 67.78.248.206 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment: On top of that definition of "Sexism" being a feminist-only definition (not the accepted definition of the world at-large), the article isn't about "only" male on male violence. There are plenty of forms of violence against males not perpetrated by males. Moreover, I find your characterization of men being unable to be opposed to male-male violence inflammatory and derogatory. Yhufir ( talk) 09:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The idea that male on male violence is not a threat, is the reason we need this article to explain the concept. See Androcide where men systematically wipe out thousands of other men. USchick ( talk) 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I find it laughable that you quote Anita Sarkeesian in support of your ridiculous statements. I thought there was no one left who took her seriously. Youtube: Anita Sarkeesian Busted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellznrg ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep the violence against men definitely has place, and it is under-reported for a variety of cultural and historical reasons. And it is not only under-reported, it is often reversely-reported, and the man is arrested when he isn't at fault. These are all contentious issues, hence topic deserves the article. There are radio shows devoted to the topic, ex. Tom Leykis Show. Yurivict ( talk) 07:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Improve - The topic is notable and distinct. Perusing Google scholar brings up a number of resources in addition to the American Psychological Association article already mentioned. -- George100 ( talk) 08:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per cirt Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 09:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Improve- The Issue of Military Aged Males being targeted for killing based on their Male-ness deserves study. There are historical examples such as Batang Kali massacre and more recent examples such as US President Obama declaring all military aged males guilty of being militants/combatants based on proximity. "It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."-“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.” ^[2] 66.190.154.43 ( talk) 10:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Ben Seeman (I thought I had a login but I don't. If the article is not deleted I will polish and add the information about military aged males tomorrow.) reply

• Keep and Improve Men are the cause of more violence then women are, but men are also more often the victims. It is important to understand the cause-effect relationship. There is research about this topic, e.g. about men attacking other men to show their dominance, to keep "their" group intact, or to increase their own standing. Also historically men have diproportionally been the perpetrators and victims of violance, I think thats enough to create a good article. Currently the article is not good, but the solution should be improvment not deletion. Update: This article could be changed to an acceptable level and then put under e.g. "Pending changes protection" to prevent any coathangers or other trolling. Lucentcalendar ( talk) 13:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Lucentcalendar ( talk) 10:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think it would be appropriate of anyone voting "keep and improve" to do a minimum of improving themselves. Crap like this is exactly why the article is up for deletion. Spending time arguing here while letting that fly under the radar isn't very reassuring. If you want this article kept, please make an effort to make sure it doesn't become a coatrack of grievances from the men's rights movement or other synthesis nonsense. Peter ^Isotalo 14:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

A number of commenters, including the nominator, are claiming that maybe this shouldn't be an article at all, which is what the debate here is about. -- George100 ( talk) 14:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I think he's trying to insinuate that a good number of the "keep" !voters just want a coatrack against feminism. Random ^(?) 15:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

No, I'm actually insinuating that many of those who have been piling on votes haven't paid much attention to what little content there is. The nonsense examplified above is pretty damned bad. So less talk, more action.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Any argument to the effect that a poor article on a valid topic must be improved within the deadline of an AfD cannot normally be entertained. Firstly, it conflicts with the editing and deletion policies. Secondly, it would allow people to force the mass deletion of large numbers of articles by deliberately swamping AfD with far more nominations than limited manpower of the system can handle. It would invite mass nominations. James500 ( talk) 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Please... People are merely piling on votes by now. This is not a debate about procedural guidelines.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Serious question: What's wrong with the diffs you cite as "crap"? Circumcision of male infants (which can never be with the infant's consent) is regarded by many activists as "unnecessary", "a violation of rights", "harmful and unethical", etc. It involves physical force to damage bodily integrity, and is thus "violence" by an entirely reasonable definition. And the example of gender-biased conscription is reliably sourced and unarguably a question of violence. Perhaps it is not the most encyclopedic content, but it is far from being beyond repair, and it illustrates that there is clearly enough material under the broad subject heading to meet GNG. (You know, in case the category and its multiple subcategories somehow didn't make the point. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 06:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

If you want to include circumcision as an example of violence against men, you have to reference it with a source that actually defines it as violence against men. WP:V applies here as much as anywhere else.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Notable and important topic. Arguments for deleting seem to be quite weak. I cannot see the justification in deleting this?-- WholeNewJourney ( talk) 14:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Improve - Looking at some Sociological literature, it seems that Violence Against Men is a significant topic of discussion and one that is distinct from Violence Against Women, at least within the perceptions held within societies. I have been looking for an article to take improve, as my account is still new and has no real edits to its name. I will look to start today and hope the page is no deleted as I work. Key areas to add should be perceptions (violence against men is seen differently compared to women), violence against transmen and homosexual men (something that is much more likely to occur than against homosexual women). Feminist view points would also be a useful contribution. Johnwayne93 ( talk) 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have alerted WikiProject Men's Issues to this discussion, as others have alerted the GGTF, and WikiProject Feminism. This discussion also clearly falls under their purview. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Scope of article appears to be "violence directed against men at least in part because they are men. Yet there are sections, like Violence_against_men#Violent_crime, that say literally nothing about the violence discussed there being directed at men because they are men. Ditto the Violence_against_men#Self-directed_violence section. It appears to me that this article already has aspects, and is likely to become more, of a WP:COATRACK for gender-warring. Also, I am not sure that chemical castration used judicially should be considered as "sexual violence" in the same breath as rape, in such an unambiguous and stark claim. This also shows POV-pushing to me. Ditto this spectacular example of WP:SYN: "One explanation for this difference in focus is the physical power that men hold over women making people more likely to condemn violence with this gender configuration,[6] although this does not explain why female on female violence is more likely to be reported than male on male.[5] Nor does it explain why sexual violence on males within conflict scenario gathers so much less attention than female sexual violence in conflict scenarios." Wow. So yes, delete. Jytdog ( talk) 18:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Jytdog, this type of content-specific criticism would be a lot more more useful on the talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • My point was to show the lack of WP:NOTABILITY of the topic itself; sorry for not making that more clear. Clearly there are so few good sources that you have to try to pile in unrelated subject matter. And I will re-iterate that even if there is some core of reasonable content, it will be in my view hopeless to keep the article NPOV. Hopeless. It will just be a magnet for advocacy. Jytdog ( talk) 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
      • There seems to be consensus for keeping this and I myself have trouble making sense of the argument that this isn't notable. It's clearly something that is being researched, eventhough there's a tendency for men's rights movement demagogues to skew the issue. I share your worries, but having an article about about a specific aspect of violence seems perfectly relevant. And if we can keep Israel-Palestine conflict despite all the controversy, I'm sure we'll be able to handle this. Your comments and scrutiny are valuable and believe they would be helpful on the talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
        • • OK, I just removed the content that does not belong in the article, either because it is WP:OFFTOPIC or is WP:SYN. Let's see what happens. Jytdog ( talk) 19:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Comment, OK I cut the "castration" content from the article and pasted to Talk for discussion, as I don't think the content/sourcing makes the case for "violence against men". Discussion is here: Talk:Violence_against_men#castration and the point is that the content and sourcing made no case about castration as sexual violence against men. (no case to see it as any kind of violence against men. Could be! it is just not there) What happens? Reverts with "gender parity is all I care about" note:"The Violence against women article has a section on FGM. Not sure whether that falls under "sexual," though - how's this?)" This is the kind of bullshit that will drive this article if it is not deleted. Jytdog ( talk) 03:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
              • I'd like to apologize for that, actually - my revert was because of impatience in waiting for your talk-page comment, combined with not seeing the problems you later pointed out in said comment and making a faulty assumption about your reasoning. (FWIW, you turned out to have a point, so I'll leave the matter alone.) That said, the danger of an article becoming a WP:COATRACK or a misinformation dump is hardly grounds for deleting it - just look at any article about a controversial subject. Random ^(?) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
                • • • • That is very gracious of you. Nonetheless, "The Violence against women article has a section on FGM" reasoning is completely wrong-headed. There is nothing in this article that cannot be handled in others; this article will just be a shit magnet for knee-jerk gender-parity-driven editing. Jytdog ( talk) 05:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Agree with Jytdog EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

"Ex abuso non arguitur ad usum" (legal maxim meaning, "From the abuse of a thing you cannot argue as to its use") Marteau ( talk) 05:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Not what I meant in the summary (see Jytdog's talk page). I do agree, though, that the article is "a shit magnet for knee-jerk gender-parity-driven editing" - just look at all the IPs, etc. here who are only using gender parity to defend its existence. That said, that's more a reason to protect the article to some degree than to delete it. Random ^(?) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, delete !votes have been unable to advance a rationale that VAM isn't notable. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Well referenced, reads pretty neutrally. I'd posit that it's on the good side of GNG and verifibility guidelines. This AfD seems entirely political. //  coldacid ( talk| contrib) 23:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The article has been substantially improved since the afd was started. Would you care to explain why the afd "seems entirely political"? -- Haminoon ( talk) 23:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Haminoon: As per Cirt [3] this article was aleady in good shape—still in need of further work but in no condition warranting deletion. The nominator's WikiProject memberships also raises a warning flag with me with regard to COI, especially as gender issues are highly politicized to begin with. In my eyes, this AfD looks bad. //  coldacid ( talk| contrib) 01:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

And before you respond to me the way you have to others in this AfD, let me just preemptively counter with the appearance of COI does not mean there is a conflict of interest; however it remains suggestive, correctly or not. I am not trying to cast aspersions on the nominator, but especially after the GGTF debacle, editors should be wary of taking actions that could lead to people making such assumptions of COI in the first place. //  coldacid ( talk| contrib) 01:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Have you actually read COI? I don't see how "full of absurd factual errors" can equal "in good shape". But then maybe I have a COI because I worked on a page of woman at some point.-- Haminoon ( talk) 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

If you are alleging that the article is full of absurd factual errors, perhaps you'd care to point to one? 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 06:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

We were talking about the article when the afd was started, but here are some removals: 1, 2, 3. -- Haminoon ( talk) 06:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing factual errors. wcd.nic.in actually is the "Ministry of Women & Child Development, Govt. of India"; their PDF does in fact claim that more boys than girls were victims of sexual abuse - PDF page 88, labelled page 74 states Out of the total child respondents, 53.22% reported having faced one or more forms of sexual abuse that included severe and other forms. Among them 52.94% were boys and 47.06% girls. On the next page we read In fact 9 out of 13 States reported higher percentage of sexual abuse among boys as compared to girls, with states like Delhi reporting a figure of 65.64%., and Out of the total child respondents, 20.90% were subjected to severe forms of sexual abuse that included sexual assault, making the child fondle private parts, making the child exhibit private body parts and being photographed in the nude. Out of these 57.30% were boys and 42.70% were girls. So, yes, the study does in fact explicitly state the conclusion that you say it doesn't come to. It also cites a study by Save the Children claiming that Among respondents, 48% of boys and 39% of the girls faced sexual abuse.

The claims being made by the Government of India study are restricted to India, and were represented as such in the diff you removed. The WHO estimate (not a specific study) they mention, OTOH, gives worldwide numbers, which the Government of India reasonably believes to be underestimates based on their own findings. Your assertion that it quotes a WHO study that says the opposite is the factual inaccuracy here.

Regarding the claims about prison rape, you appear to be claiming that something printed in an unreliable source is necessarily an "absurd factual error", because it contradicts your assertion that Most rapes are not reported - one for which you provide no citation. For what it's worth, Wikipedia's article on rape by gender already reports, with multiple reliable sources, that Several studies argue that male-male prisoner rape, as well as female-female prisoner rape, are common types of rape which go unreported even more frequently than rape in the general population. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 06:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I maintain the Indian government study didn't come to the conclusion presented in the wiki article. The report authors understand statistical significance. Re prison sexual assault, the claim in rape by gender is quite different to the claims in the edits I linked to above. You clearly didn't read the edit summaries. -- Haminoon ( talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I won't discuss this further on this page - would make sense to do so on the article talk page if need be. -- Haminoon ( talk) 08:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This nomination is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POINT incarnate. It is an example of bad faith editing to the point that it shocks the conscience. The notability of the topic is readily established by the references on the article and I am kind of surprised this hasn't been snowballed already. 184.75.210.198 ( talk) 01:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep: To delete the violence against men article while maintaining the violence against women article would be fundamentally unconscionable. Both pages deserve to exist. To presume that violence perpetrated against men and women respectively is uniform is to overlook social and historical evidence to the contrary. Improve the page, if you will; but do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerOfThorium ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep If the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth, and the sources used can verify the information, then matter of worthiness is heretofore debatable, under the existing guidelines and policies the material has met the threshold for inclusion. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I can think of several unique topics that would fit under this article, such as violence against homosexual men, domestic violence against men (which is a real issue), sexual violence against men, and advocacy for violence against men from feminists and other misandric activists. Cla68 ( talk) 04:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  "feminists and other misandric activists"? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  This seems more like an argument for Delete per WP:Coatrack. -- Haminoon ( talk) 18:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I came to this article with an open mind, since I can imagine there being a notable topic somewhere in here. What I found is poorly sourced unambiguous WP:SYNTH and seems to be basically a WP:COATRACK ready for men's rights advocates to hang their coats on. Clear case of WP:TNT, though I'm not entirely sure this community at this point in time is capable of maintaining an article like this. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I want this garbage taken off Wikipedia. It is way too triggering for most people, and it's absolutely a lie, how dare men think they're more victimized than Women. Delete Delete Delete. Make men pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.142.182 ( talk) 08:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Obvious troll is obvious. ©Geni ( talk) 08:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• commentRunning searches across .ac.uk and .edu domains suggests there has been some work on sexual violence against men and domestic violence against men but not much in other areas (it rapidly tailed off into things like violence against men in music videos). ©Geni ( talk) 08:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge and redirect to the existing article on domestic violence against men. The rest of it is, as pointed out above by several knowledgeable Wikipedians, WP:SYN. The evidence that much of the content is gender-based is not just thin, it is entirely absent. The arguments to the notability of the topic apply properly to domestic violence against men; the only group of men for which there is compelling evidence of gender-based violence outside of the domestic context is the gay and trans community, which again is a separate article. Guy ( Help!) 09:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  The material here clearly goes beyond domestic violence in many ways, as made clear by the category infobox. There is no question that forced circumcision and involuntary castration primarily affect men - given their definitions. There absolutely is compelling evidence of those practices being performed on men who are not gay or trans - as described in the articles for those topics. There is also a reliably source claim, as it stands, that In situations of war and genocide, men and boys are sometimes singled out and killed - I don't know how more clear and obvious a case of gender-based violence could possibly get. Is being killed in a war somehow not "violent"? Is being singled out on the basis of being a "man" or "boy" somehow not "gender-based"? I don't have access to T&F, but the Amazon summary for the book being cited helpfully tells us that In that article, which provoked considerable debate when it was first published in 2000, Jones argues that throughout history and around the world, the population group most consistently targeted for mass killing and state-backed oppression are non-combatant men of roughly fifteen to fifty-five years of age. So I hardly see how any WP:SYN is going on; the author's position is represented quite accurately. 76.64.13.4 ( talk) 11:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Point of Order. I recognize this isn't a vote but I would like to simply point out that it's obvious the subject matter deserves an article. There's enough material and sources to go around. Whether or not we keep it in the current form makes no difference. I'm not familiar enough with policy to say what the next move is but I don't think there is any rational and objective person who can deny that the article is worth keeping. I just want to urge the powers that be to make a decision here and those who want to contribute can get on with it. Yhufir ( talk) 11:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete MRM nonsense. This article only exists for the same reason someone tried to AFD the violence against women article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• KeepMy first instinct was to vote delete. But looking at it again, I think, except for reflexively dismissing the topic as being weird, there is no objective reason to delete the article. The content is quite legit. A fast look at the sources seems to indicate that the sources are also legit and on-topic. Best. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 14:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clear WP:COATRACK issues as the references are all over the place and seemingly limitless in [WP:SCOPE]].-- JasonMacker ( talk) 17:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is poorly written and laden with WP:SYNTH-type language, but that's not a criterion for deletion. The subject is obviously notable (especially in the context of war and genocide). It just needs a rewrite. I think what some people forget (or are not aware of) is that improvably bad prose isn't a reason to delete an article on a notable subject. My suggestion is that the article be kept, and the poorly written parts either removed or rewritten from a more objective perspective by someone with knowledge and access to appropriate sources on the subject.- RHM22 ( talk) 17:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

War and genocide are covered in War and Genocide.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete every aspect of the article appears to better belong in other articles and there does not appear to be any actual coverage of the topic itself. These are being stuffed together as a WP:SYN WP:COATRACK . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Have you seen the sources specified here? And that's just about genocide-related violence. Peter ^Isotalo 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

but that is just the point - they are about an aspect of genocide, not about an aspect of "violence against men".

I genuinely don't understand this stance. We have thousands and thouands of articles on overlapping topics, but provided with a single example of reliable sources with serious, scholarly discussion about violence, you argue that we can't have this because we have a top-level article on it. This is not constructive debate.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

If we have topics that B, C, D, E that sources have discussed we can have articles about B, C, D, E. However, we cannot lump them together as topic A unless sources have discussed topic A and the sources have discussed topics B, C, D, E as they relate to A otherwise it is plain and simple WP:SYN and WP:COATRACKing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep 4th nomination? heh, give it up already, pls...-- AldNon ^Ucallin?☎ 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Aldnonymous (AldNon), it was deleted the first two times and renamed/redirected the third time. So to say that those recreating it should "give it up already, pls" is more accurate. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Flyer22 Then I am even more surprised why this page still able to exist without being deleted, delete restored delete restored again, doesn't seems to be a sane action, let this page be. Even stronger reason to Keep, amirite?-- AldNon ^Ucallin?☎ 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

No, Aldnonymous (AldNon), that's poor rationale. This article is past its "third time's a charm" mark. But the motto for the recreation of this article is "Try, try again." Flyer22 ( talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Well keep anyway <redacted per advice on my talkpage>.-- AldNon ^Ucallin?☎ 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Time for me to stop replying to you now. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Aldnonymous, it isn't appropriate to refer to women as "my cute little X". Please consider striking that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Aldnonymous, Sarah is absolutely right. That was an unprovoked and very serious breech of civility. Please redact it asap.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - Yes. I am a feminist. (And yes, I have been accused of being a 'radical' feminist, the crazy kind who has no rationality...) But I think that things such as male rape happen to men too, and they are not immune. In fact, because of the same reasons we need feminism, violence against men has gone largely undocumented. Is it on the same scale as violence against women? No, I don't think so. Does it exist? Yes. Now I am concerned about things such as this article becoming non-neutral and misogynist, but at present, I don't really see a problem with it right now. Surely men are not immune to violence. My point is - some of the reasons why violence against women is so common is also part of the same reasons why sexual violence against men is so undocumented. —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 20:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Kikichugirl: this is no place to be casting aspersions. Please strike your comment about radical feminists. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I did not mean to insult or offend anyone, EvergreenFir. I was simply (sarcastically) quoting the many allegations against feminists that use "radical feminist" as an insult. I apologize for my tone. As such, I have modified my comment to reflect this view. I hope this helps clarify my meaning. —  kikichugirl  ^oh hello! 22:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Kikichugirl: Thank you and yes that does clarify it. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Kikichugirl: I'm curious what you mean re: "Is [violence against men] on the same scale as violence against women? No, I don't think so." Unless you're talking about a very specific form of violence, I'm fairly certain violence against men is considerably more prevalent. If we're talking about violence against men because they're men vs against women because they're women, I might agree with you. Even then, the degree of violence is a factor (ie women initiating domestic violence more frequently vs women being survivors of serious injury due to domestic violence more frequently). Separately, I wanna thank you for contributing to the discussion. I think you're on point. Yhufir ( talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I assume they mean proportional victimhood compared to perpetration. Men commit more crime and are victims of more crime in sheer numbers, but women are disproportionately victimized. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not trying to make this an issue here or hijack the topic, I really am just curious: "Disproportionate" compared to what? I have a hard time believing women are more frequently victims of violence. It also seems dubious that women are disproportionately targeted by men (or women for that matter). Are we saying that women are disproportionately victimized in terms of ratios? I just don't understand how that could make sense. Yhufir ( talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Not the venue for education. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I feel he's asking more for you to back up your claim, which is a legitimate request. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a SYN violation, and per Kaldari's point that it's comparable to Violence against adults. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  That was nice red link SlimVirgin.-- AldNon ^Ucallin?☎ 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Men make up only half of all adults. These articles are also about adults. Violence against LGBT people, Violence against women, Violence against prostitutes, Violence against Muslims in India. USchick ( talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Yes, the current article is suffering from some WP:SYNTH issues, but that's not a valid reason to delete. The article needs rewriting and expansion, but there is definitely scholarly coverage of the subject out there, and it passes notability requirements. I don't think the comparison to subsets like age groups is valid. Sexual dimorphism is the fundamental split in humanity. — Torchiest ^talk _edits 20:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Amazing. You aregue that the current article is WP:SYN and then offer your own novel synthesis as a reason to keep. I really don't think a proper article can be written at this title. It's been tried, for a long time, and failed miserably thus far. Guy ( Help!) 22:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I offered policy-based reasons, and then added an opinion. It's been done many many times in AfD arguments, and there's nothing particularly wrong with it. Also, it would be worth your time to examine the previous AfD votes. The first two are for completely different articles than what currently exists, and had very little participation from the broader community. And like I said, there is scholarly coverage of this exact subject in reliable third-party sources. Forget my opinion and focus on that. — Torchiest ^talk _edits 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Massive WP:SYNTH violation, there are not the sources to support this article yet, if the topic is even useful -- 5.81.54.189 ( talk) 22:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to vote, as in many/most cases user can easily get a new IP address simply rebooting the modem, or changing modem MAC address, or stopping by at another coffee house location with WiFi. There is no reliable way to establish the credentials of such users, nor can there be. Anybody half knowledgeable can cast many votes from IP addresses without much effort or time investment. Yurivict ( talk) 23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You sure you want to go down that road, Yurivict? I count at least 15 keep votes [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] that could be discounted with similar arguments.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Consensus is not based on number of "votes". USchick ( talk) 00:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm trying to make it clear that anyone who comes here with a "strong keep" has absolutely no business complaining about IP-users that want to delete.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from personal attacks in this discussion. Thank you. Seth Forsman PhD ( talk) 19:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

What does my position on the issue have to do with IP address voting? IP address votes only distract, and may look like votes to people not understanding modern networking. Make it confusing. Yurivict ( talk) 03:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This article has been significantly restructured so any further issues should be discussed at the talk page instead of nominating it for deletion. According to PMID  19269726 in Social Science & Medicine: "There is growing concern that sexual violence against men during conflict has not received adequate attention" [19] - A1candidate 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep (no redirect) and improve. The sources appear to show notability, and the proper response to coatrack issues in an otherwise-notable article is improving the article and removing the coatracks. I am serious about the "...and improve" part. Clearly this has attracted a lot of attention, and that attention should translate into article improvements, not just tallk page or AfD battles. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep per everyone above and the fact it passes GNG, I see Violence against Women hasn't been nominated ...... I wonder damn well why!, – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

It was, by someone who did not understand that two wrongs don't make a right. Marteau ( talk) 03:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Well I'll be buggered, Well in that case I was wrong and I apologize. – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - A simple Google scholar search on "violence against men" produces a large number of well cited papers from reputable journals that specifically address the subject. The main areas of research pertaining specifically to violence aimed towars males seem to be domestic violence (both physical and sexual), sexualized and dehumanizing violence during armed conflict, prison violence and violence aimed at homosexual men. A decent article should be able to be produced from those sources. Capeo ( talk) 04:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:GOOGLEHITS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You'd have a point if all I did was do a google search. Instead I looked specifically for scholarly articles on the subject. I've linked a few below. Thanks for being overtly dissmissive before investigating the subject at all though and lumping me in with obviously canvassed MRM SPAs. Capeo ( talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Domestic violence against men, or potentially merge to that article and the main Violence article. "Domestic violence against men" obviously passes the GNG, this article I don't so. No one has presented any evidence that "violence against men" has been discussed in depth as a matter of scholarly interest (or even mentioned in the media, outside of a few blogs and fringe sites), outside the scope of domestic violence. Nom makes some very good points, and I'm inclined to agree with several of those above that this article constitutes WP:SYNTH. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

As I noted in the post directly above yours I'd say a Google Scholar search [20] does indeed show the subject has more than enough scholarly interest to support an article and GNG. Capeo ( talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Uh, in what way? From the top 20 results, I see none that purport to be about the general topic of "violence against men" – all fall neatly into the categories of "domestic violence", "sexual violence", and "violence against women", all of which are actual subjects of academic discussion and all of which we already have articles on. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and I could go. Do the types of violence researched tend to fall into categories as you describe? Yes, they do. As does every bit of research about violence against women so you could make the same argument against that article. Capeo ( talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia "by editors for editors". It's for all of humanity. Why should only editors' opinions count? In any case, men are very often killed *because they are men*, for example in war. Men are no use to an invading army and are in fact a threat. Shakespeare Monkey ( talk) 10:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect to Domestic violence against men. The page defines violence against men as violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men. But the sources do not state that male soldiers kill male soldiers because they are male. Most killed soldiers happen to be male because most soldiers are male. And military aged men are murdered in armed conflicts to prevent them from taking up arms as soldiers. It has nothing to do with their biological sex. The same thing would happen to women if they were the sex that constituted the (potential) majority of armed forces. So the entire "mass killings" section is one big glob of WP:Synth. For example, this primary source that's used in the article says that "the adult male population of the Muslim community" was murdered but it doesn't state the reason. The murderers might have very well had religious reasons or strategic reasons rather than the desire to kill Muslim men because they were men. It's one of the countless examples of WP:Synth. The section discusses war genocide and gendercide, both topics have their own articles. The same thing goes for the sexual violence section. None of the sources claim that men rape men because the victims are male. The topic violence against men as defined in the article, i.e. violence against men caused at least in part by their being men, simply does not exist. The article is itself the best proof of that. The sources discuss male rape, violence in armed conflict, etc., all subject with their own articles. But the sources do not state that the victims' biological sex is what caused the violence. The lead definition itself is ridiculous and based on two opinion pieces in TIME magazine and The Telegraph. It just shows that someone was grasping at straws when they decided to create a "violence against men" article. I'm surprised that the editors responsible for most of the content haven't been indefed for persistent Synth. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 15:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Lots of faulty logic happening here. Women can't take up arms? Only untrained civilian men can take up arms? Who will supply the weapons? The definition is not sourced, so it hasn't been decided whether or not "because they were men" is part of the definition. In any case, men have been losing their lives disproportionately for centuries and the violence is justified by society. This article is not passing judgment, it's presenting facts. USchick ( talk) 16:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

But it's not because they are victims because of their gender. That's what the article is about: violence against men because they are men. That's what makes the topic notable for all "Violence against FOOBAR". The article is not and should not be some collect of issues related to men and violence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion about the definition belongs on the talk page. There's already a section there. USchick ( talk) 17:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

It deserves mention here as without that definition, it automatically fails GNG. We're trying to see if with that definition if it deserves deletion or not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Just because the discussion is relevant to the talk page doesn't mean that it's not also relevant here. EastTN ( talk) 19:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, this strikes me as fairly arbitrary demand. It's like asking that a precise, unambiguous definition for topics like Germans in India or women in science and calling for deletion if none can be precisely agreed upon. You have set up this condition by referring only to violence against women even though it's very clear that the nature of violence against women and men are entirely different. Peter ^Isotalo 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

In the examples you give, Germans in India or women in science, most folks are going to have a pretty clear idea of what the article is about. There may be some ambiguity around the edges, but the basic topic is easily understood. Coming to it cold, I would have assumed that "Violence against men" dealt with violence uniquely directed against men, rather than violence that just happened to affect one or more men. In any case, the scope matters, in part because we need to evaluate how many reliable sources are available for the subject matter within the scope of the article. We just need to know what the "it" is that we're talking about having an article on. EastTN ( talk) 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Why on earth does your assumption about the topic matter here? Or the personal assumptions of any other user? It's very clear that "violence against men" simply means "violence directed against men". It's no more complicated than any variant of "X of/in/from/against Y". And I assure you that I could present just as many arbitrary demands to the examples I gave. Nationals of Germany or German-speakers? India as a nation or a sub-continent? Historically or contemporary? Women working with science or being the subject of science? Natural science or academics in general? I could go on forever. What you're talking about here is content, plain and simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the article topic is valid or not.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The purpose of this article is not to set up a single, uniform definition of "violence against men" because that is already defined by the article name itself. The same is true for an absolutely huge number of articles, but we would never delete the slightly peculiar articles Soviet cuisine or beer in Syria with claims that it can't be pinpointed exactly. It's a somewhat arbitrary demand that assumes that the article has to be established fully-formed. More importantly, this is not an encyclopedic sidecar for violence against women. It's a standalone topic, just like far more obscure topics like male bra or female condom are not just "companions" to brassiere or condom. It's very clear that violence against men is very different from violence against women. It's very also clear that violence against men has not been studied as well as violence against women. It's also a lot more complex because it is about a group that has a dual role of both perpetrator and victim. All of this should be taken into account and care should be taken to keep it from being a platform for men's rights propagandists. But as an encyclopedic topic, it has more than enough merit. Case in point, a simple search on Google Books and Google Scholar. Judging by these sources, it's clear that even research about violence against women has a lot to say about this merely by pointing out the differences between to the two types of violence. If this was really just a topic unworthy of an article, there ought to be plenty of references to scholarship that actively dismisses the idea that it can be defined, studied or described. Peter ^Isotalo 19:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedians cannot set up an article title and then drop things that we think are related to it. The topic itself has to be a subject of discourse and the items entered into the article must be discussed within that context by the original authors, WP:OR, particularly WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Subject it to fire and brimstone. Obvious use of Wikipedia as a soapbox. Still, this is studied and debated a lot, so we should rewrite it from scratch. Sometimes only fire and brimstone can save an article. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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.