Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Voice for Men


 * 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) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  00:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A Voice for Men

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hate group Photon lloyd (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. — cyberbot I  Notify Online 02:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. — cyberbot I  Notify Online 02:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. — cyberbot I  Notify Online 03:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I don't contest the assertion that it is may possibly be a hate group, I think that it is clear from the significant coverage in reliable sources that it is a notable group.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Not really a comment on the AFD, but AVFM is a fairly small group, and BLP may apply to them. What's more I'm fairly certain this article falls under the Men's Rights Movement Article Probation, and in turn this discussion would fall under that restriction.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Noms opinions of the org are irrelevant, even if true. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nice amount of discussion in multiple varied secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject appears to cross verifiability and notability thresholds. The article needs cleanup and some paragraphs need better sourcing but even profoundly negative attention from the media is sufficient for WP:ORG. - Dravecky (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Personal opinions of the group aside it does meet the guidelines for coverage. Wikipedia is not censored.  Mkdw talk 03:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Decent sized organization that has made significant headlines. Regardless on what content or opinions the group has it is certainly worth having an article detailing it's history and stances. A simple "Controversies" or "Criticism" section could be used to clear up any confusion and to show both sides of the coin to appease those who are vehemently opposed to the ideas AVFM advocate and write about. QQSS talk 21:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — QQSS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --v/r - TP 21:42, 16 February 2014 (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.