828:. (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.
560:. 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!) --
169:
501:
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
527:
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,
417:
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...."
1100:
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
1099:
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
484:
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
854:
as stated above, and therefore it rightly deserves to be a page (an entity within its own right) on
Knowledge (XXG). 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.
1139:
I can support such a conclusion. By including the issue as just one part of a larger item on Men's Rights, I believe
Knowledge (XXG) will have struck the proper balance between giving the issue its visibility without giving it the undue validity of its own article.
522:
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
975:
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; Knowledge (XXG) has a
458:), 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.
97:
980:
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. --
720:
176:
1054:
The several single-purpose account contributions to this discussion were attempts to pervert our processes through sockpuppetry. I have struck the discussion contributions.
157:
92:
587:
434:
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.
915:
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.--
502:
apparently frivolous reference in parliament that has been dismissed as non-serious is elevated to the level of 'proposed government office'. --
788:
518:
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
556:
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 meet
124:
119:
185:
612:
There are holes in the nomination; in connection to the delation criteria of which this article has been nominated for (in question). --
128:
1006:
941:
881:
792:
762:
topics like thse ones do have a place on
Knowledge (XXG); but i do not agree with person below, i don't think it should be merged with
638:
215:
877:
366:
17:
1196:
1175:
1151:
1131:
1089:
1063:
1048:
1028:
989:
963:
924:
903:
864:
837:
814:
775:
753:
735:
708:
692:
660:
621:
602:
571:
551:
513:
496:
394:
374:
356:
336:
111:
76:
1122:
542:
472:
322:
308:
67:
1147:
332:
1002:
634:
201:
1039:
per
Mercurywoodrose. An interesting subject, sadly I don't believe it has enough reliable sources for its own article. --
1104:
to propose that we save ourselves time and bother, close the AFD now, and add the M&R templates to this article and
937:
850:
page (Yes, I understand that that exists within the cabinet), however, in connection to this, this certain article is a
1211:
676:
282:
36:
784:
771:
174:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
833:
247:
1210:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
422:
policy, addressing how much weight is given to various views within an article, as opposed to a policy like
370:
231:
205:
1192:
873:
860:
766:
as it is a separate ideological point of view on a certain political concept, therefore it should stay.--
190:
1170:
1085:
780:
767:
703:
566:
508:
491:
351:
115:
1118:
829:
538:
468:
446:
is the only applicable guideline, and this article skates about as close to the line as I get before
316:
302:
63:
44:
The result of this debate is consensus to keep, but merge and redirect. This is a good candidate for
1044:
345:
The article seems to be an amalgam of a few opinions and the topic doesn't appear to be notable. --
1164:
That would certainly seem to be the consensus so I've no problems with merging and redirecting. --
431:
998:
985:
977:
851:
847:
630:
617:
237:
168:
680:
414:
286:
528:
and as my comment above hopefully made clear, I won't lose any sleep if consensus is to delete.
1188:
1059:
1024:
959:
899:
869:
856:
810:
656:
597:
390:
293:
to having created the article with the express purpose of furthering his cause, this violates
290:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1101:
435:
410:
294:
1165:
1081:
933:
920:
749:
698:
561:
503:
486:
346:
107:
82:
1126:
546:
476:
443:
406:
71:
45:
1114:
534:
464:
312:
298:
59:
1141:
1040:
731:
688:
326:
672:
557:
439:
423:
1105:
1077:
1019:
I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry.
994:
981:
954:
I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry.
894:
I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry.
824:
805:
I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry.
763:
651:
I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry.
626:
613:
385:
I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry.
1055:
1020:
955:
895:
806:
652:
594:
386:
265:
253:
221:
145:
200:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
929:
916:
745:
447:
365:
Perfectly reasonable article which can be built upon. Many references as well.--
727:
684:
289:
to the topic. I further believe that, because the author has admitted
48:, so I am closing it. I have also performed the merge and redirect (
450:
supplies the rule of decision. We have coverage from the BBC, the
413:
can be, well, rinsed out. I've done some cleanup on the article.
1204:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
430:
policy addressing whether an article ought to exist at all. The
325:)) have been the only significant contributors to this article.
1080:
page: more people will read it and fewer will vandalise it. -
163:
194:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
184:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
1016:
951:
891:
802:
671:
astonishingly it does seem to have the sources to meet
648:
382:
152:
141:
137:
133:
98:
Articles for deletion/Minister for Men (2nd nomination)
51:
49:
697:
Please see my comment on the sources above. Thanks. --
721:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1214:). No further edits should be made to this page.
588:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
214:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
846:This is ridiculous; Knowledge (XXG) has a
715:
582:
188:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
454:, and even from across the Atlantic (the
719:: This debate has been included in the
586:: This debate has been included in the
208:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
281:I believe this article falls under the
90:
93:Articles for deletion/Minister for Men
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1072:. The article just about satisfies
89:
24:
1187:with men's rights and redirect.
1076:, but it would do better on the
167:
1:
204:on the part of others and to
683:are not deletion criteria.
481:13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
1231:
311:)) and his clone (sock?) (
1197:21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1176:01:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
1152:20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1132:16:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1090:11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1064:23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1049:12:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1029:11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
990:11:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
964:11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
925:13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
904:11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
865:08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
838:23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
815:11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
776:11:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
754:21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
736:20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
709:20:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
693:20:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
661:11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
622:13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
603:18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
572:02:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
552:22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
514:20:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
497:20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
418:Put another way, it's an
395:23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
375:11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
357:13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
337:12:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
77:14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
1207:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
246:; accounts blocked for
216:single-purpose accounts
186:policies and guidelines
1017:CheckUser confirmation
952:CheckUser confirmation
892:CheckUser confirmation
803:CheckUser confirmation
649:CheckUser confirmation
297:as well. The author (
88:AfDs for this article:
1007:few or no other edits
942:few or no other edits
882:few or no other edits
793:few or no other edits
639:few or no other edits
1009:outside this topic.
944:outside this topic.
884:outside this topic.
795:outside this topic.
641:outside this topic.
485:reference at all. --
198:by counting votes.
177:not a majority vote
978:Minister for Women
852:political ideology
848:Minister for Women
677:WP:Fringe theories
283:WP:Fringe theories
1174:
1171:sticks and stones
1130:
1066:
1031:
1010:
966:
945:
906:
885:
817:
796:
744:per RegentsPark.
738:
724:
707:
704:sticks and stones
663:
642:
605:
591:
570:
567:sticks and stones
550:
512:
509:sticks and stones
495:
492:sticks and stones
480:
397:
355:
352:sticks and stones
279:
278:
275:
202:assume good faith
75:
1222:
1209:
1168:
1144:
1112:
1111:
1053:
1014:
992:
949:
927:
889:
867:
800:
781:StormBlaster1000
778:
768:StormBlaster1000
725:
701:
646:
624:
600:
592:
564:
532:
531:
506:
489:
462:
461:
409:, problems with
380:
349:
329:
273:
261:
245:
229:
210:
180:, but instead a
171:
164:
155:
149:
131:
108:Minister for Men
83:Minister for Men
57:
56:
34:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1212:deletion review
1205:
1150:
1142:
1109:
830:Mercurywoodrose
598:
529:
459:
335:
327:
263:
251:
235:
219:
206:sign your posts
151:
122:
106:
103:
86:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1228:
1226:
1217:
1216:
1200:
1199:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1146:
1093:
1092:
1067:
1051:
1034:
1033:
1032:
969:
968:
967:
909:
908:
907:
840:
820:
819:
818:
756:
739:
713:
712:
711:
679:category, and
666:
665:
664:
606:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
499:
456:New York Times
403:Very weak keep
400:
399:
398:
359:
331:
285:category, and
277:
276:
172:
162:
161:
102:
101:
100:
95:
87:
85:
80:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1227:
1215:
1213:
1208:
1202:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1177:
1172:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
987:
983:
979:
974:
970:
965:
961:
957:
953:
948:
947:
946:
943:
939:
935:
931:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
905:
901:
897:
893:
888:
887:
886:
883:
879:
875:
871:
866:
862:
858:
853:
849:
845:
841:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
821:
816:
812:
808:
804:
799:
798:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
737:
733:
729:
722:
718:
714:
710:
705:
700:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
667:
662:
658:
654:
650:
645:
644:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
601:
596:
589:
585:
581:
573:
568:
563:
559:
555:
554:
553:
548:
544:
540:
536:
526:
521:
517:
516:
515:
510:
505:
500:
498:
493:
488:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
457:
453:
449:
448:m:Deletionism
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:this evidence
379:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
358:
353:
348:
344:
341:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
324:
321:
318:
314:
310:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
271:
267:
259:
255:
249:
243:
239:
233:
227:
223:
217:
213:
209:
207:
203:
197:
193:
192:
187:
183:
179:
178:
173:
170:
166:
165:
159:
154:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
126:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
104:
99:
96:
94:
91:
84:
81:
79:
78:
73:
69:
65:
61:
52:
50:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1206:
1203:
1184:
1136:
1110:- Simon Dodd
1106:Men's rights
1096:
1078:Men's rights
1073:
1069:
1036:
972:
971:
912:
911:
870:Guardian7000
857:Guardian7000
843:
842:
825:Men's rights
822:
764:Men's rights
759:
758:
741:
716:
668:
609:
608:
583:
530:- Simon Dodd
524:
519:
460:- Simon Dodd
455:
451:
438:). Finally,
427:
419:
402:
367:86.27.86.255
362:
361:
342:
319:
305:
287:undue weight
280:
269:
257:
248:sockpuppetry
241:
230:; suspected
225:
211:
199:
195:
189:
181:
175:
55:- Simon Dodd
43:
31:
28:
1166:RegentsPark
1082:Pointillist
1074:"weak keep"
1015:Based upon
1005:) has made
950:Based upon
940:) has made
890:Based upon
880:) has made
823:Merge with
801:Based upon
791:) has made
699:RegentsPark
647:Based upon
637:) has made
562:RegentsPark
504:RegentsPark
487:RegentsPark
381:Based upon
347:RegentsPark
440:notability
313:Trippleact
299:Tripple132
182:discussion
1143:WikiDan61
1041:Mas 18 dl
452:Telegraph
432:WP:FRINGE
328:WikiDan61
238:canvassed
232:canvassed
191:consensus
1148:ReadMe!!
1003:contribs
995:Lord0000
982:Lord0000
938:contribs
878:contribs
789:contribs
681:WP:UNDUE
635:contribs
627:Jack4867
614:Jack4867
428:external
420:internal
415:WP:UNDUE
333:ReadMe!!
323:contribs
309:contribs
270:username
264:{{subst:
258:username
252:{{subst:
242:username
236:{{subst:
226:username
220:{{subst:
158:View log
1137:Comment
1102:WP:SNOW
1097:Comment
1056:Uncle G
1021:Uncle G
956:Uncle G
896:Uncle G
807:Uncle G
653:Uncle G
595:the wub
436:WP:NRVE
411:WP:SOAP
407:WP:COIs
405:. Like
387:Uncle G
295:WP:SOAP
234:users:
125:protect
120:history
1189:Crafty
1127:WP:LAW
930:Tom768
917:Tom768
746:Drmies
742:Delete
547:WP:LAW
477:WP:LAW
444:WP:GNG
343:Delete
153:delete
129:delete
72:WP:LAW
46:WP:NAC
1185:Merge
1070:Merge
1037:Merge
525:Times
426:, an
212:Note:
156:) – (
146:views
138:watch
134:links
16:<
1193:talk
1086:talk
1060:talk
1045:talk
1025:talk
999:talk
986:talk
973:Keep
960:talk
934:talk
921:talk
913:Keep
900:talk
874:talk
861:talk
844:Keep
834:talk
811:talk
785:talk
772:talk
760:Keep
750:talk
732:talk
728:Artw
717:Note
689:talk
685:Artw
673:WP:N
669:keep
657:talk
631:talk
618:talk
610:Keep
599:"?!"
584:Note
558:WP:N
520:whom
424:WP:N
391:talk
371:talk
363:Keep
317:talk
303:talk
291:here
142:logs
116:talk
112:edit
593:--
266:csp
262:or
254:csm
222:spa
196:not
53:).
1195:)
1113:{
1088:)
1062:)
1047:)
1027:)
1001:•
993:—
988:)
962:)
936:•
928:—
923:)
902:)
876:•
868:—
863:)
855:--
836:)
813:)
787:•
779:—
774:)
752:)
734:)
723:.
691:)
675:.
659:)
633:•
625:—
620:)
590:.
533:{
463:{
442:.
393:)
373:)
272:}}
260:}}
250::
244:}}
228:}}
218::
144:|
140:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
58:{
1191:(
1173:)
1169:(
1129:}
1125:·
1123:C
1121:·
1119:T
1117:·
1115:U
1108:?
1084:(
1058:(
1043:(
1023:(
997:(
984:(
958:(
932:(
919:(
898:(
872:(
859:(
832:(
809:(
783:(
770:(
748:(
730:(
726:—
706:)
702:(
687:(
655:(
629:(
616:(
569:)
565:(
549:}
545:·
543:C
541:·
539:T
537:·
535:U
511:)
507:(
494:)
490:(
479:}
475:·
473:C
471:·
469:T
467:·
465:U
389:(
369:(
354:)
350:(
320:·
315:(
306:·
301:(
274:.
268:|
256:|
240:|
224:|
160:)
150:(
148:)
110:(
74:}
70:·
68:C
66:·
64:T
62:·
60:U
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
