Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister 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   no consensus. After the sources were presented, one user !voted to keep and another to delete. Although "delete" had a greater headcount, some of them were WP:PERNOM or WP:JNN arguments. However, this debate is in no way a "keep" decision, so the result is no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Minister for Men

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable political movement. The current article lists a reference about a single student lobbying the government. A google search shows a previous attempt (in 2007) that garnered fewer than 400 signatures on a petition. Hardly a groundswell of support for this idea. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not notable. Google News UK turns up only this single incident. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Do an archive search (click "all dates"). This turns up 53 hits, some of which are good, detailed sources that I show below.  Cazort (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - as an aside there is no "minister for animals" - this is publicity for a nn fringe idea. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The publicity already exists in the form of coverage in places like the BBC, New York Times, and The Daily Telegraph. The article may have been created as unsourced publicity but there are good sources available as I demonstrated below.  Cazort (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Did anyone look for sources?, , , all results: . And that was without trying.  Some of these articles discuss this topic in detail.  Cazort (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of these sources are out of date (three years old or more). Clearly, the debate fizzled without making much of a splash.  And yes, it may have garnered a few headlines, but then, many crackpot ideas do precisely because of their fringe nature.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can be be written to reflect this. Fringe views and dead political movements have a place in wikipedia.  See the debate on Seasteading...that's an article I (wrongly) nominated for deletion.  Personally, I find the concept, and the issues raised in the sources I gave, rather interesting.  And they are certainly reliable sources.  I'm not really seeing why this should be deleted.  Cazort (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree re. fringe views and dead movements -- however; this went it seems little further than some letters and the like. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment if any content is to be retained, it should be merged with something like Men's movement. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Yinta ɳ   21:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable as indicated in the nom. Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do the two of your have to say about the sources I found? There are reliable sources written about this topic in detail.  Yes, it's an idea that died...but it generated some attention.  Merge?  Maybe...but I don't see any justification for deleting the material as it is verifiable and there's a fair amount of it.  Cazort (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As Cazort shows, there are WP:RS. I'm concerned that the other !votes do not pay sufficient attention to this, and to the merits of the information in the article, discussing less relevant fringe issues (absolutely fringe), no "minister for animals" bordering ridicule.  There are many crackpot ideas on Wikipedia, their inclusion is determined if there are multiple independent RS - this is a pass. I found an additional one from the The Independent and The Observer source has found way as a reference in scholarly research (sse Reeves, R) Power.corrupts (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - i have deleted the false "Minister for Animals" claim in the article so that issue is now moot. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've considered the sources, but am not inclined to change my !vote - this is not a serious idea, not even a fringe serious idea, it is something that has been raised in a WP:POINTy way on a couple of occasions. Could have a mention under Men and feminism or Anti-feminism, but I don't think it rates an article. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2009 (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.