Deletion of Violence against men (4th nomination)

Comment: Non-notable  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Before this article was recreated, it was discussed at Talk:Domestic violence against men/Archive 1#Violence against men. A ermalink for that discussion is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence_against_men&oldid=648700666#Violence_against_men here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: 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 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per Cirt, Grillmaster, ''et al''. TFD may have a point about , but I don't think the page is completely irredeemable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:BLOWITUP)

Comment: I think it would be appropriate of anyone voting "keep and improve" to do a minimum of improving themselves. Crap https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_against_men&diff=prev&oldid=649210982 like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_against_men&diff=649327268&oldid=649320984 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: This nomination is  and  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. Special:Contributions/184.75.210.198|184.75.210.198
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:POINT)

Comment: 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  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 : "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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SYN)

Comment: The main issue here should be , but the nomination makes no attempt to explain why this topic isn't notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Massive  violation, there are not the sources to support this article yet, if the topic is even useful --Special:Contributions/5.81.54.189|5.81.54.189
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: 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, . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: The article is poorly written and laden with -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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: 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  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Clear  issues as the references are all over the place and seemingly limitless in WP:SCOPE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: 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  and seems to be basically a  ready for men's rights advocates to hang their coats on. Clear case of , though I'm not entirely sure this community at this point in time is capable of maintaining an article like this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:COATRACK||WP:TNT)

Comment: Yes, the current article is suffering from some  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I am also tempted to alert eminism, but enough eminism editors watch the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force talk page. Besides, someone else might alert eminism anyway
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F)

Comment: Synthetic (possibly tendentious) topic that lacks on-point sourcing and so fails . 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.{{cn
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:BLOWITUP)