Violence and autism: However, as pointed out on the talk page there don't appear to be sources that cover these phenomena as a group, meaning that the article's linkage of these things is essentially original research.  While it would be possible to split the article, unfortunately it was a straight translation from French Wikipedia which does not require WP:MEDRS sourcing.  No one has checked the references and a lot of them do not appear to meet MEDRS standards; the content cannot be kept without valid sourcing.  There is no obvious redirect target.  ( t · c ) buidhe 01:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  I've described why this article is problematic at length at Talk:Violence and autism .  To quote myself, "the article in its current state creates/suggests connections that are not backed by any literature. This is already evident from the fact that the article never defines the term "violence" and uses it in various different meanings throughout the text without distinguishing them."  Neither the translator nor the organization who paid the translator have shown any interest in potentially resolving the issues. -- TempusTacet ( talk ) 01:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking my ! vote thanks to updates.  When I get a chance to read in-depth I may return with a new ! vote.  Delete I think an article could feasibly be written on this topic.  However it would require WP:TNT and there does not seem to be the impulse to do that.  There have been clear issues with this article from the start on en (no fault of the translator) but they have largely gone unresolved even with the attention given.  Even WP:ATD specifically notes that If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.  , and I think we're at that point here.  — siro χ o 02:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Highly problematic article with various unresolvable issues, eg.  not defining the term "violence" in the title; what should have been a minor section in autism spectrum is unnecessarily elongated into such an unprofessional article, NanaOn-Sha ( talk ) 07:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 00:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without prejudice against the translator, or the concept that a good article of this title could be written.  One big problem is the sheer quantity of (often contradictory) stuff that's been published.  It's all too easy to write your own personal essay synthesised from the sources you find most appropriate, rather than a balanced overview of the current mess.  The other big problem is that beliefs about autism, attitudes to autism - even the definition of what autism is - are wildly different between different countries.  As a result, we've got an article that reflects French issues with autism transplanted into an English-speaking Wikipedia, which already struggles with the (huge!) difference between the US and the UK on autistic matters - and the article just comes across as very weirdly lopsided.  Since the subject is already so messy, I would strongly suggest that anyone attempting to write should stick to a single topic (e.g. self-harm in autism; violence and prejudice against autistic people; correlation or otherwise between autism and criminal behaviour), and try to provide an unbiased overview of public perceptions and medical/educational sources on that subject across multiple countries.  It won't be easy.  Elemimele ( talk ) 08:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SandyGeorgia : you've made a truly vast improvement; in fact the article is unrecognisable compared to how it was this morning, for which reason I've struck my delete.  I'm still worried that the entire section on violence expressed by people with autism is referenced from French authors, and therefore may not fully reflect views in other countries, but Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be perfect - they can be improved.  I do not think this article is still eligible for TNT, and by splitting up the forms of violence into very clear, separate sections, the problem of mixed subject is greatly reduced.  I'd be prepared to accept a keep in its current improved state as I now think it's encyclopaedic, relatively balanced, useful, sourced, and deals with something notable.  Elemimele ( talk ) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This was a remarkably poor article (ala WP:TNT and WP:ATD ), but after some cleanup, it should be re-evaluated; I believe that there is, or can be, an article here, and there is now a structure and theme.   There are definitely sources.  Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 21:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Buidhe , Elemimele , Siroxo , TempusTacet ,  and NanaOn-Sha : for a new look (I applied the TNT).  Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still don't see any sources that cover all these phenomenon as a group?  If the content is to be kept, I think a split is in order.  ( t · c ) buidhe 22:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All what phenomenon?  Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As stated above, and looking at the references, it seems that there are a different set of sources covering violence *by* autistic people and violence *against* autistic people.  It's not obvious why (or if) these phenomena are related.  ( t · c ) buidhe 01:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Buidhe All of the items you mentioned in the nomination are no longer in the article (eg, self-harm is a symptom, and I excised it, along with others).  The article now has two things only:  violence against people with autism, and violence by people with autism, along with public perception of same.  In medical writing, both "violence by" and "violence against" are topics that could be included under Prognosis or Outcomes.   For example: In 2003, children diagnosed with Asperger's were more likely to be victims of violence than tormentors.  [6] is in the article, and cited to a source that discusses both.  Also, a very recent review which I haven't yet incorporated (because it is so meaty and contains so much info that should be used, PMID 35637365 ) includes both, as a sample (others did as well, but I failed to note which at the time I read them):  see the section on A History of Victimisation .  I also don't understand the argument that all aspects of a medical article have to covered in one set of sources; if that were the case, I'd not be able to include, for example, a lot of the content of Tourette syndrome#History or Tourette syndrome#Society and culture or Dementia with Lewy bodies#Caregiving or Dementia with Lewy bodies#History or Dementia with Lewy bodies#History .  All of these have completely different sets of sources than diagnosis, treatment, symptoms, etc.  You seem to be implying there is still SYNTH in the article, but I'm not seeing that.  Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PMID 33107234 also looks at being both a victim and perpetrator.  Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think it's always a requirement that all aspects of a topic are covered in the same sources, but when there seem to be multiple topics that are bundled together it is a way to show that the connection exists outside of Wikipedia.  ( t · c ) buidhe 17:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Buidhe here's an entire scholarly tome from a reputable publisher by recognized ASD experts like Fred Volkmar that deals with both "violence by" and "violence against" (that is, both victims and perpetrators ).  Handbook of Autism Spectrum Disorder and the Law .  (2021).  Springer International Publishing.  Violence by and violence against autistic people are the only topics covered here, along with social perception of same.   If you see anything that doesn't belong (I don't), that can be solved via normal editing.  Sandy Georgia ( Talk ) 23:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – seems to have a clearer scope and cohesion due to recent improvements by Sandy.  McGuire and Schmidt alone seem substantial enough to imply notability, but there are many other sources used as well.  Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  (old !vote previously stricken above).  I had to distance a bit from the old problematic article before re-reading.  But SandyGeorgia's rework of this article is a solid WP:HEY .  The article maintains NPOV both in phrasing and in weight.  The article avoids synthesis, both in the immediate conclusions, as well as the subject matter presented (it's not a COATRACK anymore).  Honestly, the main remaining criticism of the article is that it's not done, which of course is never a reason for deletion.   — siro χ o 00:43, 5 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep