This article is really great. Very sourced and comprehensive. Prose mind blowingly good. Plus Domestic violence is just a cool and fun topic. Policratus 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object; come back after you've taken care of all those little boxes at the top of the article. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 19:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too soon, given the issues that need to be resolved. Isn't this the guy who nominated the rapper yesterday? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose looks like another bad faith nomination. I don't know why anyone would nominate an article with cleanup tags in good faith. - Tutmosis 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad faith nomination: This article was listed for speedy delete (see recent thread on WP:AN), and now FAC. If there is no one who disagrees, I will unlist the nomination in a few hours, and we may need to discuss the nominator on AN or AN/I. Geogre 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: I hope that this works, as I'm lousy with diffs, but the prior discussion should be here [1]. New accounts galore, old time evil clown trollery with regard to this article. Geogre 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD listing had been done by user:Hizzizle or something like that [[2]]. Geogre 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if men are 35% of the victims, why is so little space devoted to it? Rlevse 22:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose

I am a domestic violence educator so this topic is important to me and I want this article to be as perfect as it can be. I think the article needs a heck of a lot of work, maybe even major surgery. Meaning no disrespect to the editors who have put lots of work into the artcle. Domestic violence is a complex and controversial subject--that makes this a difficult article to write and edit. Give it time.Cyclopiano 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)cyclopiano[reply]

• Oppose

This article looks like it has been murdered, call the CSI., Flubeca 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Delist. The cool and fun topic rationale is reason enough. --Ouro 10:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up: The article got sudden interest from a dial up unstable IP editor on 10/29, and all of this fun 'n games seems related to it. Not worth a checkuser at this point, but definitely de-list. Geogre 11:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, the tone of the nomination text at the top verges on the offensive. I'd resort to WP:SNOW to get rid of this. Tony 14:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose

This article needs some major worked to do. There are two templates that indicate that the neutrality is disputed and it dosen't site any refrences or sources. Come back later when these templates are gone.--PrestonH 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]