Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duluth model

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Accuracy of this article was disputed by User:174.20.84.102 (talk), who made various attempts to delete the content, and have launced an AfD on their behalf. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is my first time taking part in a deletion discussion, but if the issue is one about accuracy, wouldn't it be possible to make the article more accurate (through research) and then be able to save the article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 06:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Have looked back at the comments made by User:174.20.84.102 when they tried to delete the page. They say (in part) "I actually work for this program in Duluth. What do we do about the fact that others have time to write so much but it is so inaccurate? We do not want a page about our program where we are just defending it against these ludicrous arguments. The defense in and of itself would legitimize them. ... this is the way in which the article completely misrepresents The Duluth Model. Throughout, it presents something that is actually called Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Curriculum as "The Duluth Model" ... [this] is only one very small component of The Duluth Model or what is commonly known as "The Coordinated Community Response" ... . If the user is correct, I have some sympathy for this and clearly we don't want an inaccurate page up. But I'm not sure how we can be sure about any of this without someone doing some work to establish an accurate and referenced description of the model, and if it is a contested area that is going to be difficult. Is it a valid reason for deletion that someone with a CoI says a page, which is not a BLP, is inaccurate? Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply not a notable concept at this time.... There’s virtually no mainstream sources on it, only academic journals. The question is, if this thing has worked why is the implementation section empty? Trillfendi (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Only academic journals" as a reason for deletion? Peer-reviewed papers in academic journals are pretty much the best possible sources, and are very much mainstream. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This clearly has plenty of coverage in reliable sources, so we should have an article based on a proper balance of what those reliable sources say. If there is disagreement about the content then that is a matter for discussion on the talk page, rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Don't understand how this discussion works exactly. So complicated. And to understand it a guide page leads to another guide page and to another guide page. Not sure when/if a rule is being broken. But anyway - in answer to some of the comments. The title of the article is inaccurate (and not capitalized); the subject matter is NOT about the title; the references appear correct but they are akin to a particular selection of words cut from a news paper to create a message that wasn't originally intended by (most of) those who wrote the articles in the paper; it cannot be corrected - that would mean we have to follow the format of the existing article, it needs a new one entirely; there is an ethical question here for your the whole Wikipedia system - can Pro-Life of America write a page for Planned Parenthood (citations included) and it is accepted on this site? That is what we have here. And there isn't a person 'reviewing' the request for deletion who knows the topic well enough to realize that what we're saying is true. Its a kind of tyranny of structurelessness. There needs to be a mechanism for the human subjects of articles to be able to have a say in what is being posted about them. This is the era of trolls and fake news. If you don't the site will become garbage before long. Because there are people who are working hard to make the world a better place (on this site but mostly off of it) and there are people who spend their time deliberately trying to sabotage those efforts, and a 'structure' like this is a gift to them.

• Comment. First of all, you have been given a "voice" in Wikipedia, and we are now in the middle of a discussion (which I think you proposed) to delete this article. The article title of "Duluth model" complies with Wikipedia's WP:MOS for titles, and is what it is referred to in most sources. This article's structure is also pretty vanilla - summary, origin, effectiveness, and criticism. There is nothing inherently "controversial" in such a structure. Your comments, while I am sure are well meant, appear as a "rant". You have yet to highlight a single sentence that you find false (and of course the appropriate reference from a WP:RS to back that up). We have major discussions on Wikipedia on topics that are far far (far far) more controversial than the Duluth model, and we get to sensible outcomes. We are also well able to defend and protect content against other people's bias and WP:POV, even when the ariticle creator is long-gone. Britishfinance (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At a simple level, the "Duluth model" exists and is notable. I can even produce enough online GNG references on that — E.g Huff Post [1], or NPR [2]. However, I don't even think the IP-proposer of this AfD questions the subject's notability anyway. On that basis, it is a technical Keep.

There is an allegation of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, which could be summarised as a WP:TNT case for deletion. AfD is not always best for TNT but is done for extreme cases. Reading the article, it does not appear unbalanced. It has a section on "Criticism" which seems balanced. It has sections on history and effectiveness which do not seem OR/SYN. There is no obvious AfD-type OR/SYN case to me.

I agree with Anthony Appleyard's decision to give the IP-editor access to the AfD process, however it is required of the IP-editor that they meet WP:PAG in making their case regarding OR/SYN. And in particular, highlighting the specific sentences of dispute, and providing references from WP:RS to back them up. We owe that to the creator of this article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a cited reasoning when I put in a request for deletion. Where is it. I tried to put in here again but it wont let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.84.102 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AFD is not cleanup. The sources provided both in the article and in this AFD are convincing. NPOV is an editing issue. shoy (reactions) 13:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. New to all of this, yet a free flow of information from both sides should be allowed, if citation of sources is provided.

It appears that the user who is crying for this page desires for it to be deleted, is doing so as their inherent bias is not supported here, with their unsubstantiated claims not backed up with suffice evidence to justify their edits. If this page is deleted, it will set a precedent that if you are unable to edit a page to reflect your views, you are able to have it removed via request for deletion, irrelevant how many cited resources are included within it.

Please do not set such a precedent and instead, encourage the user to provide evidence substantiating their views via cited sources, rather than trying to bully us into their viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian1234567 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 March 2019 (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.