Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Union of Men

Tally: I count 13 delete votes and 4 keep votes. I ignored troll/sockpuppet votes from User:Crevaner, User:Old Right, and User:Bigbadsteve. I did count User:QIM as a keep vote. I'll delete American Union of Men now. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American Union of Men
See Votes_for_deletion. -- Solitude 07:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Very odd political argument, non-significant. Geogre 11:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep; article may need extensive work, but this is not a reason to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is more Tom Smith vanity nonsense - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems significant to me. -- Crevaner 23:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.  RickK 00:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP, I don't think its vanity at all, just info. -- Old Right 15:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if the organization in question were notable, a reader of that article still comes out with no idea what it is that the organization does, if anything. Livajo 16:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As a side note, it also seems that an article with this name has been deleted in the past. See here. Livajo 16:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP, I put the article up a few years ago as "info" and a few of us did some work on it then. I've been busy and didn't get back to it until a few days ago to do some more work on it.  The organization was copyrighted in 1986 and has been in the Encyclopedia of Associations since 1991.  It now hosts one of the largest discussion groups of men's issues on the net and has a respected international reputation for developing strategies, agendas and coalitions in the men's movement.  The respected and newly successsful international movement "Father's 4 Justice" have utilized some of the products of our brain storming and we are associated with them.  User:QIM
 * KEEP - I am a masculist rights activist and writer from Melbourne, Australia. I have used Tom Smith's AUM as an important source of gender rights information and debate for some years. The attempt to delete information about it is probably the work of radical feminists and their fellow travelers, many of whom will use any means possible no matter how immoral and totalitarian to try and stifle debate about their outmoded beliefs which lamentably are practiced by many Western governments partly via sexist Womens' Departments funded to the tune of millions of dollars a year. In Canada, for instance, there is a govt-funded Women's department campaign for feminists to 'take control' of the internet. Recently the department was named in the Canadian Parliament for trying to make male-positive reporting illegal, monitor pro-male journalists and activists, and jail them. This is typical of tactics used worldwide, since logic and fact alone are not enough to allow the outdated and exaggerated lies of radical feminism to prosper. To give in to their demands by pulling Tom Smith's article would be the digital equivalent of book burning on the grounds of 'political incorrectness.' The fact that AUM expresses what are often presently minority points of view no more justifies censorship than would an article by an author expressing opinions common amongst his or her minority race or minority sexual preference. To do so would be discrimination, pure and simple.- Steven Stevenson Bigbadsteve
 * You're calling me a feminist? Please excuse me while I go provide some colleagues with their daily entertainment, haha. -- Solitude 12:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Bigbadsteve has only recorded 2 edits so far, both to this discussion.  See contribs. Rossami 03:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google knows about Mr. Smith's organization, but offers no hint of him or it having any particular notability beyond aggressive self-promotion on the internet. According to the above, however, I am probably a tool of a vast international radical feminist conspiracy, so my vote should probably be ignored. RadicalSubversiv E 07:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonnotable vanity. ElBenevolente 09:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete in the interest of National Security(tm)--MaxMad 12:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Jallan 19:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, non-notable, pseudo-personal attack on women and feminism under the guise of empty, politically-motivated "criticism", aka propaganda. --Viriditas 02:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete... sorry, but the feminists who control me have made it quite clear how I am to vote. func(talk) 01:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: agenda promo, personal promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP This article is currently thin but gives insights into an aspect of the debate on the role of men and women in society. If this is deleted where do you draw the line on other pressure and advocacy groups? JPF 10:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this seems a sufficiently noteworthy topic and I don't believe that Wikipedia should succumb to such censorship. StuartH 12:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. The line is drawn on notability. Positions put forward by advocacy groups should be given in articles about that position, where people would expect to find them, probably listing the more prominent groups supporting that position. A prominent advocacy group is likely to get its own article. Small advocacy groups themselves are not especially notable. Ideas are not being censored. But non-encyclopedic articles are dropped according to policy. Edge cases are mostly argued here on this forum. Generally articles that appear from their manner of presentation to be progaganda are dropped, whether feminist, masculinist, pro-Christian, anti-Christian, pro-Bush, anti-Bush and so forth. In theory, articles on minor organizations are dropped, no matter what their purpose. If you want to call it censorship, then Wikipedia does attempt to censor obviously POV articles and non-notable information. I presume American Union of Men also "censors" on its website, including only material that is generally relevant to its purposes. Most people voting here so far do not feel this article fits Wikipedia's purposes. Jallan 15:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I note that during the voting period, none of the "keep" voters have improved the article.  If the subject is encyclopedic and notable, surely there are some newspaper articles that would provide the basis for an acceptable article.  The page seems to be no more than a self-promotion, poorly conceived, non-encyclopedic, non-salvageable.  ---Rednblu 17:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--

I'm sorry that the vote has gone this way, but considering the group think of the times and the enormous power of feminism, it's a hopeful sign of Wikipedia's NPOV that my page got the "Keep" votes it did. Many thanks to those who voted to "Keep". User:QIM