Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for Men (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Minister for Men}} ([{{fullurl:Minister for Men|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for Men (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

{{-}}{{Not a ballot}}

I believe this article falls under the WP:Fringe theories category, and undue weight to the topic. I further believe that, because the author has admitted [http://minmen.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=510 here] to having created the article with the express purpose of furthering his cause, this violates WP:SOAP as well. The author ({{user|Tripple132}}) and his clone (sock?) ({{user|Trippleact}}) have been the only significant contributors to this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The article seems to be an amalgam of a few opinions and the topic doesn't appear to be notable. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly reasonable article which can be built upon. Many references as well.--86.27.86.255 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Based upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minister_for_Men&diff=prev&oldid=304088887 this evidence] I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Like WP:COIs, problems with WP:SOAP can be, well, rinsed out. I've done some cleanup on the article. WP:UNDUE is inapplicable: In a nutshell, it requires that an "article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It expressly contemplates "articles specifically about a minority viewpoint...." Put another way, it's an internal policy, addressing how much weight is given to various views within an article, as opposed to a policy like WP:N, an external policy addressing whether an article ought to exist at all. The WP:FRINGE issue is tricky, but, mutatis mutandis, I'm persuaded by the references collected in the previous AFD that we have sufficient sourcing for at least a brief article (cf. WP:NRVE). Finally, notability. WP:GNG is the only applicable guideline, and this article skates about as close to the line as I get before m:Deletionism supplies the rule of decision. We have coverage from the BBC, the Telegraph, and even from across the Atlantic (the New York Times), along with some incidental coverage (direct and indirect) in other outlets, but it's watery fare. All things considered, I lean ever so slightly towards keeping; I could be pushed either way with good notability arguments.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) [Addenda: If the AFD fails to gain consensus for deletion, I would support a merge and redirect, as proposed by various users below.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)]
• Well, the New York Times reference is a passing tongue-in-cheek reference to a generic idea of a minister for men (as the yang to a minister for women's yin). It does not say that there is a 'proposed government office' of this sort, not even as an implication. I don't see it as a meaningful reference at all. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Telegraph reference says a 'cross-bencher had a novel solution to youth unemployment. Lord Northbourne wanted a Minister for Men," and then goes on to say that Lord Falconer, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office said that this was not a serious question. We apparently have a case where a single apparently frivolous reference in parliament that has been dismissed as non-serious is elevated to the level of 'proposed government office'. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• The article points to sources noting that it was raised in both the Lords and the Commons. If it has been proposed, it has been proposed - by whom is simply not covered by the bare statement that it has been. That Lord Falconer, qua the representative of a government with no intention of adopting the proposal, was dismissive of the concept is unsurprising and has little bite. While you're correct that the Times article mentions the idea only in passing, I think it serves to situate the idea in its broader context (the same idea and rationales used to percolate in students' unions and in the lobbies of NUS Conference, FWIW). At any rate, this is as close to a borderline case as I'd ever be willing to keep, and as my comment above hopefully made clear, I won't lose any sleep if consensus is to delete.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Times article does not mention 'minister for men' in the same sense as this article at all and cannot be considered as a source to meetWP:N. The article is about a 'proposed government office' and the Telegraph article makes it quite clear that there is no such proposal in existence. One MP calling for a minister for men in a single parliamentary debate does not make it to the level of a 'proposed government office'. (If we took every single suggestion that every single parliamentarian has made in parliament and used that to assert notability, we would be in big trouble!) (I know you're a borderline keep but these two sources are really giving more reason to delete than to keep!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There are holes in the nomination; in connection to the delation criteria of which this article has been nominated for (in question). --Jack4867 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — Jack4867 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
• Based upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=304574324&oldid=304570678 CheckUser confirmation] I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• keep astonishingly it does seem to have the sources to meet WP:N. WP:Fringe theories category, and WP:UNDUE are not deletion criteria. Artw (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please see my comment on the sources above. Thanks. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per RegentsPark. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep topics like thse ones do have a place on Wikipedia; but i do not agree with person below, i don't think it should be merged with Men's rights as it is a separate ideological point of view on a certain political concept, therefore it should stay.--StormBlaster1000 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — StormBlaster1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Based upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=304574324&oldid=304570678 CheckUser confirmation] I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Men's rights. (note that i have a partial understanding of how merge is done, how content is transferred, so its possible im off base) until this becomes an actual position, or has significantly more coverage, it appears to be a minor news event being used to promote discussion of the issue. ill pass on the author of the article being part of this, that could be fixed, though he needs to understand how COI works. i think on balance this is just not notable on its own, but is a minor part of the mens rights movement. regentparks comments are quite germaine regarding the quality of the references. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is ridiculous; Wikipedia has a Minister for Women page (Yes, I understand that that exists within the cabinet), however, in connection to this, this certain article is a political ideology as stated above, and therefore it rightly deserves to be a page (an entity within its own right) on Wikipedia. What's even more scandalous about this article being nominated for deletion is that it is packed with high quality, sufficient and trust-worthy references. --Guardian7000 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — Guardian7000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Based upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=304574324&oldid=304570678 CheckUser confirmation] I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and I agree with individual near top of this material - It should not have been nominated for deletion and should be reverted to initial version.--Tom768 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — Tom768 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Based upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=304574324&oldid=304570678 CheckUser confirmation] I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There are a range of sources and references which support this as a valid, sufficient and high quality article within its own right. It has had quite a bit of attention and I am in agreement with person above; Wikipedia has a Minister for Women page (regardless it exists is inconsequential), however, I suggest reverting this article back to its original/initial - past form as it carries more info in regards to this particular topic. --Lord0000 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — Lord0000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Based upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=304574324&oldid=304570678 CheckUser confirmation] I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per Mercurywoodrose. An interesting subject, sadly I don't believe it has enough reliable sources for its own article. --Mas 18 dl (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• The several single-purpose account contributions to this discussion were attempts to pervert our processes through sockpuppetry. I have struck the discussion contributions. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. The article just about satisfies "weak keep", but it would do better on the Men's rights page: more people will read it and fewer will vandalise it. - Pointillist (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Thusfar, I see three users supporting deletion, (the nominator, RegentsPark, and Drmies) and five users who oppose deletion (myself, Artw, Mercurywoodrose, Mas 18 dl, and Pointillist). All the users opposing deletion except Artw have either predicated their opposition to deletion on a merge and redirect ("M&R"), or expressed support for a M&R when the nomination closes. Given this state of play, two things seem clear: that there isn't a consensus to delete, and one is unlikely to form in the day's run time left on this AFD. We're headed toward a no-consensus close. Can I invoke WP:SNOW to propose that we save ourselves time and bother, close the AFD now, and add the M&R templates to this article and Men's rights?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I can support such a conclusion. By including the issue as just one part of a larger item on Men's Rights, I believe Wikipedia will have struck the proper balance between giving the issue its visibility without giving it the undue validity of its own article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• That would certainly seem to be the consensus so I've no problems with merging and redirecting. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with men's rights and redirect. Crafty (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.