Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fathers' rights

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep. Rje 23:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fathers' rights
This article is a lengthly non-NPOV screed (carefully couched so as to appear neutral) in support of a particular British antifeminist movement. The primary authors of the article have a history of reverting changes made with the intent of neutralizing the non-NPOV content. I see no hope that this article can easily be reduced to a form that will pass for NPOV, or that the individuals who are responsible for this state of affair will cease their non-NPOV-introducing edits. Hence, I recommend the deletion of this article. &mdash;Kelly Martin 19:54, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * If 'anti-feminist' means oppossing the view that children are women's property to do with as they please regardless of the father's wishes, then I am most definitely anti-feminist, but I haven't heard any feminist spokespeople express this view, presumably because they would in their hearts be ashamed to, though there are women in the family courts every day who actions support that view exactly. Matt Stan 07:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If the wording is so carefully couched as to appear neutral then how can one reasonably claim that it is not, and surely one needs to cite some evidence to support that view? And what can one do about text that is believed by some not to be neutral but appears so? Perhaps we have a new category of problem in wikipedia, something which is in fact expressed in NPOV terms that accord with wikipedia's policies but which some readers find offensive because it calls into question their deeply held prejudices. All I would say to them is, don't read it then, and go somewhere else where you can preserve your prejudices and ignorance intact, OK? Matt Stan 07:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * They read your mind. They can see that your secret intention is to be non-NPOV.  Therefore the text must be non-NPOV despite the lack of evidence.  Paul Beardsell 19:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see evidence of any reversions and who is alleged to be doing it. I've generally only added to the article, and corrected anomic contributions. Anything I delete, I put up on the talk page. I haven't noticed anyone else doing systematic reversions, and I have been a contributing to this page for a while. Matt Stan 23:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Author ought to be ashamed of himself for refusing to compromise or seek consensus; he instead insists that anyone who disagrees with what he's saying is simply 'uninformed'. Delete for reasons above. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 20:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I say that anyone who disagrees that I am informed is probably uninformed, unless of course they are better informed, in which case obviously I will yield. Matt Stan 21:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with Kelly Martin & Fennec's exposition of the problem. However, the "fathers' rights" movement is a highly notable topic internationally, and Wikipedia articles are never just the product of one "author", but of the community. Revert POV edits back; if an editor violates the Three-revert rule, they are subject to blocking. There are other options for Dispute resolution, Page protection, etc. Has everything been tried? Samaritan 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Samaritan. Spinboy 20:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What Samaritan said.  ElBenevolente 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samaritan is channeling my thoughts. However, this article needs some serious cleanup. Just about every other sentence is an unsourced POV, making the article more of a rant than anything else. --Plek 21:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the topic itself might be notable, but this article does not cover any of it. If you removed all the non-NPOV content, there would be nothing left.  Perhaps I should simply replace the entire screed with a brief stub? &mdash;Kelly Martin 21:42, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep The notable absence of any particular bits being cited as POV continues. Matt Stan 21:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extremely notable subject. Nominator deserves censure.--Centauri 21:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth.  VfD is not cleanup.  GRider\talk  21:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is a strongly POV article with an unproductive editing process. Nonetheless, it is a notable topic. I suggest that Kelly Martin or other editors go forward with removing the considerable amount of un-referenced and POV material. It sounds like the real problem may be the originatig editor, rahter than the topic itself. -Willmcw 23:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Centauri, though the article clearly needs cleaning up (and possibly paring down). --Angr 23:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Shouldn't be deleted for POV problems any more than an abortion or Israeli-Palestinian article Philip 01:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic in several different contexts.  POV problems should be worked out through normal means.  The topic and title are not themselves inherently biased.  Comment:  I object strongly to Centauri's crack about censuring the nominator.  While I disagree with the nominator, the nomination was politely worded and fact-based.  This was an allowable question to put before the community.  Rossami (talk) 01:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only if the article is almost entirely rewritten. As it stands, the article is hopelessly biased, and unworthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. However the topic is important, and it would be nice to see an article that talked about the "Father's rights" movement as a particular reaction on the part of some British men to feminism. As it is, it's extremely parochical, assuming that the world revolves around the UK and is essentially just a rather tiresome tract for this movement. If the article is not fundamentally re-written, Strong Delete though this would be unfortunate, as the topic itself is a good one for an article in the Wikipedia.Zantastik 02:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs TLC. -Sean Curtin 03:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if cleaned up. Agree with Samaritan, Sean Curtain, Plek, and particularly Zantastik, but especially with Rossami. This page (VfD) used to be mostly civil, with only the occasional flare-up. The last few months it seems to have almost daily personal attacks. Niteowlneils 04:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has serious POV issues, and some editors have difficulty abiding by the personal attacks policy.  Nevertheless, these are best addressed through reasoned discussion, requests for comment, peer review, and , not outright deletion.  The topic is valid and important, and wiping the article would just invite an edit war 'land grab'.  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, but censure all of the people above who feel the need to attack other people's motives in making VfD listings. RickK 06:15, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. ComCat.
 * Delete POV tirade. If cleaned up I cant see anything more than a stub out of this. PS I'm not a feminist either. Megan1967 07:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Overwhelmingly extreme keep. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 08:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup. The rights of fathers in divorce cases is a topical issue in many countries including the UK and Australia. We should make sure that the article is NPOV but we should follow the appropriate procedures. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content reflects my knowledge of the topic and is balanced and fair. To censor such an article would be reminiscent of Nazi book-burning. Kittybrewster
 * Comparing it to nazi book-burning is a bit exterme. Spinboy 16:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is that a bit extreme? It seems like a fair and accurate analogy to me.   GRider\talk 17:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Because we're not censoring content, the purpose is to solely ensure that it meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Spinboy 17:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In which case could someone please indicate what is NPOV about it, bearing in mind the notes at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies#Elusive_virtue and perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extreme_article_deletion Matt Stan 19:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. LY 16:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The critics should contribute, not censor.  Paul Beardsell 19:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, watch the PoV (personally I think 90% of this issue is anti-feminist codswallop but WP has an article on Creationism too). Wyss 20:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, but it needs an extreme cleanup to remove POV and original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This very accurately reflects my knowledge having progressed through this system in an ultimately unsucessful attempt to maintain a relationship that can only be to my children's benefit. Just because the predominant viewpoint is that the system is unfair to fathers(and therefore children), doesn't necessarily make it anti feminist.  Fathers going through this process generally only want equality of care and status with the mothers, surely feminism is about equality, not the superiority of women over men? --DanDav 22:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am very interested that perhaps one or several of the detractors, whom a UK Appeal Court judge has recently referred to as a "small group of obdurate women", might have surfaced in wikipedia, ostensibly on a NPOV tirade, though at least one of them has demanded the removal of all the facts from the article and no one here or elsewhere has identified specifically what it is about my and others' writings here that they find objectionable on whatever grounds. (I can only conclude they don't like my up-front style, which is why I maintain this is an ad hominem attack, rather than a genuine NPOV argument.) That is a pity, as I was hoping to hear expressed a reasoned set of counter-arguments to the fathers' rights cause. I imagine if anyone were to consult the leading sisters in the womens' movement they would be told to keep quiet and just hope that outlets like wikipedia don't get wide enough exposure to contribute significantly to the downfall of their, it can be reasoned, hitherto quite powerful clique. Has it not occurred to you that what is written in the article just might all be true, regardless of whether you like the people who wrote it? Matt Stan 07:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepI agree, and I would like to warn people that it is ok if the Father's rights movement is anti-feminanist in so far that it seems, from their perspective, feminism is not about equality but in many cases becoming about promoting women at the cost of men's rights SO LONG as the article states that this is what these groups SAY/THINK, then that is NPOV. --ShaunMacPherson 17:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Shaun, I think you have misinterpreted the "anti-feminism" argument I have made in my earlier comments. My view is that the movement can only be regarded as anti-feminist if feminism is NOT about equality between men and women.   If feminism is only about this equality, then the fathers rights movement cannot be said to be anti-feminist as fathers are seeking only equality in care & status with mothers when it comes to their parenting.   I hope this makes this clearer? --DanDav 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep -- This article will always hold some bias to a degree. Longhair 07:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)