Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's Rights Agency


 * 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 Delete. James086 Talk &#124; Email 07:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Men&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I've had a look through Google News, Google Scholar and Google Google for this group and have found a few references, but generally it is just the group commenting or making a one-liner. The group hasn't achieved anything, just made public statements about men's rights, eg., ,. There's no secondary websites with any information about the group themselves as a group, so this should warrant them as non-notale Montchav (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I also Googled the organization and found the following notable news articles on the organization.  However, the article does need to be expanded. Shoessss |  Chat  12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is quite a misleading search to base a keep arguement on.Garrie 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , Jezz, I am going to have to change my idea of what is misleading. Attaching a link to a Google search is misleading?  I would have thought just the opposite. Shoessss |  Chat  12:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I think that the sources are really weak on this one. I think that the general subject is worthy but this group has not achieved any reasonable level of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although I have heard of them, I would not say they are a notable organisation and the rather misleading google result courtesy of Shoessssss tends to confirm my opinion.Garrie 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment', Perhaps what Garrie meant was not that a google search is misleading, but that that particular one was a bit too broad. This search  is a little tighter, with only two results.  Pastordavid (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:::Thanks for your comments Pastordavid talk. The last thing I want to do is mislead.  I always believed, just “state the facts” and I let the individual make up their own mind!  Additionally, thank you for refining the search.  The question I ask now is how many references does one individual person, product, group, concept, etc, ECT have to have before we include in Wikipedia.  I admit, I am an in_clusionist and do sometimes tend to vote for groups on the fringe.  However, what I have found in life, is that the group I thought were on the “Fringe”, by my perception, were actually very well know by individuals with a different geographical, cultural or philosophical outlook. Shoessss' |  Chat  02:14, 29 November 2007 (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.