Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Going Their Own Way


 * 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. Mkdw talk 01:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Men Going Their Own Way
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a school report full of weasel words, sentences phrased to appear to be references, and all sorts of other devices and stratagems to seek to show that this neologism is notable. It fails. Fiddle  Faddle  19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true. Notability has been established by the many reliable sources that refer to this referent.  Notability grounds for deletion fail, so deletion cannot occur on those grounds. Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Trim down, refine and keep. The subject is clearly notable, as defined by being the topic of multiple news items from WP:RS, as a Google News search will show. The article in its current form still needs substantial changes to meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and citation rules. It will, however, require quite rigorous and thorough editing to achieve those standards. -- The Anome (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment if you rip it apart and rebuild it, or if someone else does, then ping me and I'll give serious consideration to withdrawing the nomination. At present I doubt it can be achieved and thus am sticking with "non notable neologism". I'm willing to have my mind changed, though.  Fiddle   Faddle  19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been chopping away at it for some time, and there's still quite some way to go: the initial version of this article was a lengthy WP:SYN-heavy essay. A Google news search seems to show that there are more reliable sources available on this that the original author realized. A Google Scholar search might also be helpful. -- The Anome (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep- I thought for sure I'd be !voting delete on this, because of the POV pushing and misrepresentations from both sides, but Anome's good work has convinced me that it has potential. Reyk  YO!  21:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete. The article no longer even properly explains what it is about and the criticism section is much too prominent. If the best we can do is an uninformative hatchet job maybe we shouldn't have an article at all. Reyk  YO!  06:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your grounds for deletion ("If the best we can do is...(than) ....we shouldn't have an article at all.") are false. This is not the best we can do.  We can do much better.  Your deletion grounds are not valid. Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't explain what the subject is even about, and it's been like that for over a week with no sign of improvement. If I am mistaken, prove it. Reyk  YO!  19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - The article (re)creator did a decent job providing sources and showing relevance, though it was rough. A good start and The Anome is doing a good job refining it and making it encyclopedic. Given its notability and the fact that people are working on it, I say keep for now. Once the work is done, we can reevaluate, but I doubt I'll be in favor of deleting by then given the current progress.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - As the creator of the article, I am not interested in having a Wikipedia article about MGTOW just for the sake of having a Wikipedia article about MGTOW. If the article does not correctly and completely explain MGTOW, detail the various gradations within MGTOW, and contrast it with unrelated men's groups, explain its equivalence with the herbivore men, and its equivalence with the marriage strike/boycott, then I don't even see the point in having an article. If it makes any difference, the near-consensus of the MGTOW outside Wikipedia with whom I've discussed this is agreement with my delete vote here.  Editors who know nothing about the subject have somehow decided that MGTOW has nothing to do with the herbivore men, or with the marriage strike/boycott, even though MGTOW themselves and Herbivores themselves (such as  Kyojiro Kagenuma) disagree.  The Helen Smith book is an excellent source, but you have decided that it cannot be allowed.  The majority of the Google News articles are useless and only show up in the search results because someone mentioned MGTOW in their comment sections. The fact that you have removed everything from the article except "criticisms of MGTOW" is clear example of WP:UNDUE weight, intended to make it appear as if MGTOW are merely "men who whine about women on the internet".  You also do not consider Milo Yiannopoulos to be a reliable source (but do consider the VICE article to be a reliable source, even though the latter is clearly a poorly researched, heavily biased journalistic hatchet job, intended to mock MGTOW with  phrases such as "those tricky, tricky women"). If all this is the case, I instead prefer to wait several years, after a number of books about MGTOW have been written (as I expect), to make any Wikipedia article about MGTOW, or not to have an article at all.  —''' M aximum G ross T ake O ff W eight (talk). 22:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * You should read WP:OWN before you find yourself blocked. The article was a disaster before and it's through a lot of hard work by others that it's resembling something worth keeping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I never even used the word "owner" (I used the word "creator") nor intended to imply I was. The threat to block me is uncalled for. —''' M aximum G ross T ake O ff W eight (talk). 22:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ricky81682 WP:AGF I don't see what threatening to block this editor accomplishes here. Scarpy (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'll strike that entirely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, keep your high-handed, thuggish, bullying comment there. We don't want an apology or a recant. Delete the article, and ban MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight, and myself, and everyone, and keep your "Open Platform", which is open only to views that you condone. We do not want an MGTOW article on Wikipedia. Delete. Nomnompuffs (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We can restore/improve those sections just as soon as this deletion process is stopped. Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You mention that this article needs to completely explain the topic, particularly by including some details you mention, otherwise the article should be deleted. Can you point to a Wikipedia policy that requires complete explanations with failure at this requiring deletion? Can you explain how stubs (WP:STUB) are generally acceptable? Also, since I imagine that the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia would be deleted under that criterion, can you please point us to some Wikipedia articles about real-life groups that completely explain their topic, thereby making them OK to keep? &mdash; Olathe (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as well. This will require a lot of work to keep it in proper shape as evidence by the creator's attitude above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and I would remind the other editors here that their personal feelings about MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight are not relevant to this AFD discusion. Please review WP:AFDEQ and collaborate efficiently and cordially with other editors. Scarpy (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This article is a hollow shell of what it was, and I do not want to see this redacted, stripped and impotent article which doesn't at all represent MGTOW being used as the public face of MGTOW. This article doesn't represent anything close to what MGTOW is. The original article submitted by MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight was what the MGTOW COMMUNITY approved as being an accurate definition and description of MGTOW. This perverse stripped-down shell is nothing close. Get rid of it. Nomnompuffs (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good deletion rationale. clpo13(talk) 01:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you fail to parse the rest of the statement, where I explained that the primary reason is that it is not representative of MGTOW at all, even in the slightest, and every MGTOW thinks its a ridiculous farce and we want it deleted? As confirmed by every MGTOW who has read the article and commented on it so far? Or was that just you being dishonest and trying to make it seem as if my objection was solely because I don't like the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomnompuffs (talk • contribs) 02:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There exist two (German language) secondary sources which explicitly state that:
 * "MGTOW" are equivalent with the Herbivore Men
 * "MGTOW" are the topic of the book by Helen Smith (i.e. Marriage Strike/ Career Strike/ Education Strike).
 * There are also secondary sources which state that MGTOW is a general phenomenon in which men can be MGTOW without knowing about the word "MGTOW" (this criterion, by the way, also logically implies that Herbivore men are MGTOW).  This implies that general references (that do not mention the word "MGTOW") about men abandoning marriage/etc are relevant, because MGTOW refers to the general *phenomenon* of men abandoning marriage/relationships/the rat race, not just the online community.   (But at this point I can't be bothered anymore, so just delete.) —''' M aximum G ross T ake O ff W eight (talk). 01:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you like to tell us what those sources are? I see no mention of a German source at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way but maybe I just missed it. Footnote 1 here is quoting Smith and she calls it "Men on Strike" not MGTOW. Is your argument that this is all the same thing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe this blog post freiewelt.net is one of the German sources. It might not be mentioned on the talk page, but a few days ago I deleted some reference to herbivore men and wrote in an edit summary, "Deleted due to lack of reliable, non-primary sources that compare MGTOW with herbivore men in Japan. FreieWelt.net is a partisan blog website." That was the only German source I came across, but I'm sure another one could have been deleted by someone else without me noticing. While we're on the topic of herbivore men, I've also commented on the talk page that, "I've not seen any articles about herbivore men that compare it to MGTOW. I've only seen articles where MGTOW's compare themselves to herbivore men. I've also seen articles about MGTOW that specifically differentiate themselves from the Japanese herbivore men movement." I feel strongly that sources about Japanese herbivore don't count as RS for the MGTOW and the argument that they're about the same "phenomenon" is not at all true and is not supported by a single reliable source. As far as MGTOW's notability, I'm abstaining b/c I keep going back and forth. Permstrump (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let us continue this on the talk page if there's anything more to add. There's a lot of excited new editors coming to this article and hopefully they will learn about our sourcing standards and can help us craft a better article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep meets notability guidelines. Needs to significant editing, removing fluff and superflous description but it's notable enough for an aticle. RadioFan (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep has been covered in reliable sources, although this article is already becoming an edit warzone so some form of oversight might be needed. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Talk page, User:The Anome has enumerated 5 putatively reliable sources. However, two of these only mention MGTOW briefly:
 * Reggie Yates does not "reference the topic [of MGTOW]" as a "primary, or near-primary, topic" in his sham documentary. He only briefly shows the MGTOW.com website on screen and some youtube comment sections.  Most of the documentary is about PUAs, MRAs, internet trolls, standup comedians, and feminists.
 * And the SPLC report is primarily about men's rights activists, not MGTOW, and also only mentions MGTOW in passing. I am also surprised that he considers organization such as the SPLC, with a clear biased agenda (and even lawyers to defend this agenda) as a reliable source. —''' M aximum G ross T ake O ff W eight (talk). 16:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I just noticed that the original version of this article seems to have been copied from the MGTOW Wikia (Yes, there is a MGTOW wikia!) FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Copied "to", not copied "from". —''' M aximum G ross T ake O ff W eight (talk). 16:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep because DINC. I think we have enough to establish notability. The article is actively being cleaned up (h/t The Anome). Let the cleanup proceed, and if it proves too hard, we can then talk about deletion or merging into the manosphere article. De Guerre (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the basis that this appears to pass WP:GNG I withdraw the nomination. Please note that this does not mean that this discussion may be closed immediately . Two opinions to delete the article mean that this discussion must run its natural course and that consensus is still required. I applaud the editors who have removed the POV pushing material, and deprecate those who seem to be insisting that the article requires it. Discussions on content are for the article talk page, not for this deletion discussion. Fiddle   Faddle  10:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think I've now got the article down to the WP:NPOV essentials that can currently directly be supported by WP:RS, without it being either propaganda or a hatchet job, and I'm still inclining to "keep". If the article fails to grow over the longer term, it may be best to starting thinking in terms of merging this into manosphere article as a subsection. -- The Anome (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Men's rights movement or manosphere - currently there is insufficent secondary material directly about the subject. However I'd suggest merging any good content (there is some in the article) to either the Men's rights movement or manosphere articles and then redirecting to one of them-- Cailil  talk 16:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - in its earlier and longer version it easily met WP:GNG as a notable topic, with many third party refs cited. It needs restoring to a more complete version such as this version and then fixing any remaining issues, not cutting out almost all the text and then noming for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The movement meets WP:GNG, though without the propaganda and the POV positioning.--Jorm (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - strongly agree with Ahunt. Article should be kept and reverted to its higher quality previous version. Maxvgc (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand per Ahunt. The topic clearly meets GNG. Instead of trimming the text, try to fix it. sst ✈  06:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect per Cailil. I don't feel there are enough reliable sources on the subject to support a non-stubby article of its own.  Previous versions were a mess of original research, relying heavily on cites to blogs, youtube videos, and other low-quality unreliable sources; looking over it, it also looks like it cited the same few sources and people over and over.  When you trim it down to what's usable, there's enough to cover a mention on Men's rights movement or manosphere, but not really enough to give it its own article. --Aquillion (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and seriously prune. Trim it down to a definition of the term (etymology comes first), note about similar terms (the Japanese grass-eater phenomenon), a little history, perhaps some context (divorce law, in particular), and references. References should include web links, as part of the late development of MGTOW is certain websites and youtubers. The justification and advocacy can go, as can the attempts at high-falutin' "philosophy" and the libertarianism. Paul Murray (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - As per MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight and Nomnompuffs I feel the current entry mis-characterizes the philosophy in lue of the content that was allegedly insufficiently sourced. I submit that it would be better to have no article than a misleading, heavily culled one.Dwm347 (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — Dwm347 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * @Dwm347 Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The article can change and grow as the number of reliable sources on the topic grows. - Scarpy (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a couple instances of WP:THEYRE-NOT-PLAYING-NICE-IMMA-TAKE-MY-BALL-AND-GO-HOME going on here. I can understand the frustration, but the solution is to allow the article to stay, and work incrementally and over time to improve it, not ragequit. Marteau (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I !voted keep but not to see it "incrementally improved". The subject is notable and there is some worth keeping in this article but it needs SIGNIFICANT improvement, starting with removing the promotional language.--RadioFan (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "They're not being nice, I'mma take my balls and go home"? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Of course it's notable and worthy of an article. And yes the hatchet job that has occurred to the fine start on this article is understandably frustrating, but the solution is not to give up. Let's try to make things better, not simply remove an entire article because we are upset about how others are treating it... that's not how good editing is done.  Marteau (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and expand based on reliable independent sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's rough right now but clearly passes WP:GNG, which is all that really matters. Let it grow as good sources become available. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Who suggests or supports deletion should have the basics of Wikipedia explained to them. Help them, don't destroy. Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as the facts are present and new additional sources are filtered. Megr1124 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This article no longer contains any useful information, and is therefore pointless MrPC (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's some kind of "usefulness" threshold for information in articles. There is not.  Also, it's not clear what "useful" means in this context.  Therefore, your deletion grounds are invalid.  Chrisrus (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Manosphere per Cailil, the article directly states MGTOW is a subset of the "red pill movement" (manosphere). Manosphere would be a better fit than the MRA article, as MGTOW doesnt seemed to be primarily focused on "rights". PearlSt82 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right about the differences, but if you would familiarize yourself with the available WP:RSes on this topic, not just the current state of the article, you will see that there is clearly enough by now for a separate article. This social group and their associated philosophy or way of thinking has nothing to do with the vast majority of the "manosphere", is clearly notable, and our readers will be clearly served by a the creation of a good Wikipedia article, which this deletion process is currently inhibiting.Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The deletion process isn't inhibiting anything. Articles can always be improved while a deletion discussion is ongoing. In fact, improvement of the article has the potential to save an article from deletion (there's an essay about that, but I can't find it). clpo13(talk) 20:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. clpo13(talk) 23:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While WP:HEY is true and a point well taken, resources dedicated to defending the article from deletion, together with the apparent futility of dedicating resources into an article in danger of deletion, are together preventing several of us from getting much work done on the article.
 * However, I will concede your point provided that enough deletion proponents describe their reasonable Heymann Standard and deletion be disallowed for an appropriate amount of time for the Heymann Standard to be met.  Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete wiki is too SJW and politically biased to have a MGTOW article. There are articles on other sites of which google prefers to point at anyways.i agree with MGTOW (maxgrosstaxoffweight)'s pointsAmghow (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC) — Amghow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia's alleged "bias" (see WP: NPOV) is not a valid reason to delete an article. Neither is which site(s) Google prefers to point at. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. The present state is just temporary.  A good article can be created if allowed to exist.  Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The knowledge of this subject is more becoming vast and informative. all we have to do is to condensed the subject matter on a much objective and factual position. Megr1124 (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I noticed this article was discussed on the fringe noticeboard, where the comment was: Maybe serious feminist scholars could help with sourcing. And people wonder why most women don't want to edit WP... Prevalence (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the original form of this article had serious issues, but at the heart of it is some verifiable information about the topic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Night Gyr. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * absolute deleteYou should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this fascistic piece of bloviating macho posturing, locker room penis-waving, rape-culture glorifying bit of utter nonsense to stand as long as it has. No wonder there are no female editors on Wikipedia. This is Despicable, an open attempt to intimidate women away from the project, and not a real phenomenon, verifiable by any legitimate sources not affiliated with the topic, and even if real, not notable, and even if notable, not appropriate for an encylopedia, which has an ethical responsibility to not chase away half of its potential users by subjecting them to what is essentially hate-speech.. "Group of Lonely Men on Internet discover casual sex" is not a plausible encylopedia article. Abhorrent.World Champion Editor (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2016 Please see Sockpuppet investigations/World Champion Editor and note that this editor os blocked as a confirmed sock puppet of Kingshowman Fiddle   Faddle  00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I fear Wikipedia only has a responsibility to be factual and well referenced, Sometimes it fails either or both of these things. It is desirable to have a better mix of editors, but a deletion discussion is not the place to express this. WP:VP is better suited to that serious issue. We need more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT in order to make use of your strongly expressed opinion. Fiddle   Faddle  19:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Sancho 04:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a bit of personal experience with this issue, as I belong to a field that also suffers from a dearth of women, and is also dedicated to Truth: philosophy. Yet we philosophers have decided, like the rest of society, that we have an obligation not to actively exclude women (and other under-represented groups) from our field through creation of a hostile, unwelcoming environment towards them, and speak up against this kind of attempt at intimidation and exclusion, by ramming a completely not-notable Internet forum with a minuscule number of users on to Wikipedia and allow them to pretend the illusion of a movement. There is no movement, this is not a notable phenomenon. 1-2 news articles or blog posts about this vulgar sexism hardly makes it notable. There is no room for this trash on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does have a moral obligation to make sure they are not excluding women via their policies. Women are no less intelligent than men and no less able to contribute to the project of collecting the world's knowledge, and thus, if there is a dearth of them, we have fair grounds to assume that perhaps unconscious biases and discriminatory behaviors are chasing them off and showing them they are not welcome here. Here is most obviously one, this reporting on an absolutely completely not notable small band of Internet sexists, written by the owner of the forum. This is a complete waste of time for all involved, and bad for the encylopedia in all possible ways. World Champion Editor (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the connection you're making where hosting an article like this one on Wikipedia would discourage women from participating. It's completely plausible that it could have the opposite effect, women could take more interest if there's more controversial articles related to gender. Maybe it would have no effect either way. It's more of an empirical question than anything else. I also haven't seen any evidence that the person who created the article is the owner of the mgtow dot com forum. Even if he was, it's been modified so much from his initial version, I can't see how it matters. All of that being said, as important as being inclusive is, it's not an argument related to AfD criteria. - Scarpy (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That, and World Champion Editor's description of the MGTOW people seems rather hateful and inaccurate. As far as I can tell, they're just guys who choose not to date because they think the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. I've seen no evidence of "locker room penis-waving", or "vulgar sexism", and the existence of this article is clearly not an attempt to drive women off Wikipedia. The notion is completely ridiculous. Reyk  YO!  21:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to be drawn further into this dispute, because, honestly, who cares whether some hate-group men's forum gets a Wiki page? But here goes: they are obviously a sexist organization looking to spread their bigoted ideas, such as, for starters, these two, mentioned right on the page: 1. Women commonly falsely accuse men of rape (actual fact: nothing further from the case could be true. Most women who are raped do not report their rapist, and there are very few false accusations of rape. You are doing real harm by allowing this utter nonsense on your website.) 2. Women, unlike men, are inherently "hypergamous", I.e by there very nature they are looking to "marry up" and use men for their money. (Actual fact: women have been excluded from most professions for, oh, say the last 4000 years. They don't need this vulgar pseudo-sociology making claims based on anecdotal evidence and evidence gathered from periods when women were systematically excluded from earning their own living.) if you want to support these know-nothing, anti-women groups started by what appears to be an 18 year old strangely cowering in fear that he will "falsely be accused of rape" spreading the vulgar sexist canard that women do this every day, be my guest. But again, when you later ask "why do no women edit here" please do Remember what I told you: it's the fact that you allow angry sexist males a platform to spread distasteful hate speech against women. World Champion Editor (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * World Champion Editor appears to be engaged in deliberate trolling. No one should reply to him, and a good case could be made for removing his comments entirely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not "trolling" because I am pointing out the obvious: that the notion that this bizarre, pathetic Internet forum which promotes the canard that women commonly engage in false accusations of rape is in any way "notable" .World Champion Editor (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I could only even consider supporting a "Keep" if some sort of Tag marking them as a "Hate Group", or "Groups which spread Discriminatory Canards" were added, so it is clear that we are only reporting on them in the same way we report on to other such Bigotry-promoting, anti-social organizations. Thoughts? Evidence they are a hate group, spreading intolerance and bigotry, straight from the sources you cited: "Women are, by nature, manipulative, attention-seeking, inconsistent, emotional, and hypergamous. Accept this truth"  User:World Champion Editor|World Champion Editor]] (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that you are someone who is deliberately trolling this page and that it's not going to be long before you are blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Jorm (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * would someone care to explain how it is not bigoted to state "women are, by their nature, manipulative, etc"? That is open and shut evidence of bigotry.22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @World Champion Editor The presence of a Wikipedia article isn't an endorsement of the article topic. No one is saying you have to like or agree with this group, any more than you have to like or agree with Heaven's Gate because they have a Wikipedia article or like to eat Nattō because it has an article or like to listen to Yanni because he has an article. In fact if you dislike this group so much, it's perfect opportunity for you to use every reliable source available to make the world aware of all of it's foibles in an encyclopedic manner. And, again, None of this is relevant to AfD. Not continuing this conversation further per @FreeKnowledgeCreator suggestion. - Scarpy (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Someone, presumably a new editor, accidentally left their comment on the talk page for this AfD, rather than the AfD page itself. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's not be subjective or too personal of how we feel about the topic being discussed, We should stick to the facts that are being presented, not by our own personal opinions. Megr1124 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2016 (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.