Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Father Michael Goetz Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The debate doesnt appear to be a consensus at the time of close. The closing rationale is that the article has no encyclopedic content however the article already had one sourced element of notability added during the Afd (google's cache doesnt include this addition) and I had provided evidence that there were more sources which could be used. John Vandenberg 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn deletion the closer doesn't get a super-vote... there was no consensus and the article had "encyclopedic content" anyway. --W.marsh 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete. There were only six comments arguing for deletion (assuming the nom as a !vote to delete) vs. 7 editors wanting to keep the article. Clearly there was no consensus to delete the article. The closing is a clear error. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral I was expecting this one to be brought here. I closed this AfD by disregarding the "all schools are inherently notable" argument and attending to the requests of users whom I saw as standing on the side of the first pillar of Wikipedia. I neither endorse my deletion nor call for its overturn.--Húsönd 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Afd participants whose arguments were along the lines of "all [high] schools are inherently notable" are voicing their opinion of what should be in this encyclopedia (the first pillar) that we are building, and it is an opinion that is held by many people. Disregarding those opinions is enforcing your own definition of what is encyclopedic. John Vandenberg 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your justification that you were "attending to the requests of users whom I saw as standing on the side of the first pillar of Wikipedia" is something any closing administrator could say who was abusing his or her authority by simply taking sides in an argument. Since the editors you disagreed with also thought they were standing on the side of the first pillar of Wikipedia, you needed to point to something much more specific in Wikipedia than the first pillar (or describe the violation very specificly), and you needed very strong evidence that the actions of the editors you disenfranchised were violating it. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence, and vague appeals to the betterment of Wikipedia can easily hide a preference for one side in a controversy. You say just above that you realized your action would likely land your decision here. That means you should have been still more careful in taking such an extremely unusual step. The fact that you haven't presented a better justification here further suggests the original action was poorly made. I see that you've posted some negative comments here about one of the participants in that discussion, User:Alansohn at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn, in which you said:

Apparently omnipresent in every single school WP:AFD, it is utterly clear that Alansohn has an obsessively inclusionist agenda aiming at preventing articles about schools (no matter how blatantly unencyclopedic) from being deleted [...]

I don't know what was going on in the closing administrator's mind, but it certainly would have been more prudent for him to avoid closing discussions involving Alansohn after delivering such a personal criticism of Alansohn, and certainly to close it in such an extraordinary way. And in both cases, Husond acted explicitly in a way criticising inclusionists. There's a kind of conflict of interest here and it raises suspicions, it calls into question Hosund's good faith, and it's frankly demoralizing to me. Whatever was going through Husond's mind, he should refamiliarize himself with Wikipedia's fourth pillar: "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations." Noroton 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete By no means was this a featured article candidate, but it did make claims of notability. In ignoring !votes that made a claim of keep based on inherent notability, an equal and opposite number of !votes that made the opposite and false that no school is notable were counted, in addition to other !votes that ignored the content of the article or the changes that had been made to it after the AfD was created. There was no consensus to delete the article. . As modified, the article made credible claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. In ignoring some !votes and counting others, this closure was improperly turned into a mere vote-counting exercise that failed to consider the content of the article in any fashion. Alansohn 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. I see nothing out of process here. In fact, I don't see anything in the keep votes based on policy. I specifically don't see any that say "Keep because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly", which is required for any article. The position held by some that "all high schools are notable" does not have consensus at Wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that high school articles are often deleted at AfD. Without a further basis in policy, the inherent notability position should be given no more weight than WP:ILIKEIT. -- But|seriously|folks  01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well the quality of the article matters more than what people said at AFD... we wouldn't knowingly delete an okay article just because people didn't make good arguments at AFD. At any rate Mr. Vandenberg did make the notability/sourcing argument and the article did cite sources for its claims of notability... arguments to delete seem to be glossing over that in the spirit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as much as anyone is invoking WP:ILIKEIT here. --W.marsh 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep arguments are simple WP:ILIKEIT that are not based on any policies or guidelines (there is no policy or guideline that states that all high schools are notable because there is no consensus for that position, as Butseriouslyfolks stated). --Coredesat 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between arguing that "all high schools are notable" (which some "keep" !votes did) and saying "I like it". You are simply arguing that the "keep" opinions should be ignored because YOU don't consider them valid opinions. If you disregard opinions that don't reach the same conclusion you do, of course you will always find that "consensus" agrees with your opinion. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I !voted to delete, but I thought it was clear that the consensus was the other way.DGG 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - keep !votes were based almost entirely in the notion that all high schools are inherently notable. In the absence os a policy saying so, the burden is on the keepers to demonstrate that the specific high school is notable. That didn't happen here. Otto4711 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Using that !logic, someone has to establish that every individual U.S. Congressman in history is notable, or that every single UK train station, U.S. state highway, MLB player, episode of Lost, etc... is notable. There are hundreds of groups of articles where the express or implied decision is that being a member of the group makes the subject notable. You appear to be saying that can't be the case with high schools and that the opinions of people that think that it should must be ignored. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 'all X are notable' equates to 'I like X' and can be discounted. Notability should be established by sources. Addhoc 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It was... there were 2 sources. --W.marsh 12:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • On the cached version there is only an external link to the official site and school board profile, neither of which establish notability. Addhoc 12:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The two sources added late both referenced claims of importance (notable alumni and "high school team of the year"), and the sources were [1] and [2]. --W.marsh 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Husond made a good argument for his closing and it was in process. Nothing in this article demonstrated notability. Eusebeus 10:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Related question: was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepherd Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line) closed incorrectly? --NE2 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion Minor news sources added at the last minute that mention the school in passing are not enough. All X are notable is not something that the closer needs to pay attention to. If more sourcing can be given, I will be more inclined to change my view. JoshuaZ 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• undelete this please the news sources were not minor no consensus was to erase it either yuckfoo 01:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure: if there are new sources sufficient to meet WP:N, bring them here and we can consider them, but closer's reading of the debate was flawless. Xtifr _tälk 09:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There were sources added. The closer only addressed the silly "all schools are notable" argument, which is like shooting fish in a barrel, while conveniently ignoring the actual sourcing/notability argument. It was hardly a "flawless" reading, unless you agreed with it I guess. --W.marsh 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I'm saying that the statement "I've got sources" is not, by itself, a free pass at AfD or DRV, and there was no evidence that anyone at AfD was impressed by the quality, reliability or depth of coverage provided by those sources (not even the other "keep"ers). As JoshuaZ said above, "Minor news sources ... that mention the school in passing are not enough." In the absence of topic-specific guidelines, we have WP:N, and there's no evidence that anyone thought the sources were sufficient to pass that. I see nothing to justify overturning the deletion on procedural grounds. But, as I said above, and repeat again, in the hopes it may get through, I would be willing to listen to an argument to undelete based on (new) evidence of notability. Which, I see you made a start at above, but one passing mention and one local article about the school's football team is not, IMO, "significant coverage". But it's a start. Find more sources, enough to meet a reasonable reading of WP:N, and I will happily reconsider. Xtifr _tälk 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete - there was no consensus for deletion and the closer's statement "Without encyclopedic content ..." is simply incorrect. It is for the Community to judge whether the article meets notability standards and on this views were divided so the article should have survived as a 'no consensus'. For non-admins I have temporarily placed a copy at User:TerriersFan/Goetz, which differs markedly form the cached version. TerriersFan 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Where the concern is notability, the AfD should be a discussion on whether there are enough in-depth reliable sources out there from which to write a neutral verifiable article here. Unfortunately, almost no one in this AfD indicated that they made a minimal effort even to look for appropriate sources. (John Vandenburg came closest by providing links to search engine results, but failed to evaluate those sources in the AfD.) So none of the keep opiners demonstrated that there are multiple non-trivial sources (the two sources W.marsh links to are trivial w.r.t. Goetz), and none of the delete opiners indicated that they looked and found no appropriate sources. I.e. the AfD discussion was almost totally useless.

  Moi, I can find no non-trivial sources on this school, so if I had participated in the AfD I'd probably have recommended delete. But I'm fallible and untrustworthy; the point of the 5-day AfD is to have many editors, not just one, look for and evaluate sources. Now we're at DRV and we're supposed to review the AfD that just happened. The result of the AfD should have been "I, Husond (the closing admin), have no clue what to do with the article after reading this rather [cough] unhelpful discussion," or, if you prefer, "no consensus." Overturn and restore. Pan Dan 23:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete this extraordinary abuse of Wikipedia deletion policy Reasoning:

1. A number of participants in this discussion have said the closing admin acted correctly because they agreed with him that certain "Keep" arguments cannot be considered in assessing consensus. That's a clear procedural violation of Wikipedia rules on closing discussions. I meant to delete this but was distracted. Sorry.
2. Which Wikipedia official policy states that participants in deletion discussions must cite a Wikipedia rule in order for their deletion opinions to be considered? If there were such a policy, then I would just cite one of Wikipedia's prime rules, WP:IAR all the time and thereby remain within the rules.
3. There are rules aplenty for administrators closing deletion discussions, however. At Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, very clear rules on reasons for ignoring an editor's contribution to a deletion discussion are given, and not one of them says that when figuring out consensus you can ignore an editor's comments because the editor didn't cite a Wikipedia rule. If my position that all high schools are notable is not a Wikipedia rule, it is still my opinion and should be counted as part of figuring out the consensus. Minority opinions are to be considered in deciding whether there is a consensus -- by the definition of consensus. They may or may not be part of the resulting consensus, but they are to be considered, not ignored. THIS IS A CLEAR PROCEDURAL VIOLATION. It is even clearer that the closing admin has violated the spirit of Wikipedia policy on consensus, which is about as important.
4. The idea that WP:ILIKEIT is in any way equivalent to "all high schools are inherently notable" takes about two seconds to demolish: How can I or anyone else possibly like ALL high school articles? Reread the actual WP:ILIKEIT article before blithely throwing around references to it. It's about what editors actually like. I don't give a damn about the school and I don't like the article (although I don't think it's awful enough to delete). I give a damn about Wikipedia, and I believe the encyclopedia is enhanced by having articles on nearly all high schools. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in which WP:ILIKEIT is an item, is not an official Wikipedia policy or guideline. It is an essay. As it says at the top, "merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)". Even if I did just like it, my opinion should have some weight in determining consensus.
5. At Wikipedia:Deletion policy it states: "Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes" (nutshell section up top); it also states: "pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept" ("Processes" section, "Deletion discussion" subsection)
6. At Wikipedia:Guide to deletion it states: "By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanct, and may not be overturned or disregarded lightly. ("If you disagree with the consensus" section). Does this apply to administrators or just the rest of us? Noroton 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (made minor edit Noroton 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

• Comment: If the closing admin of THIS discussion agrees that Husond appropriately rejected any comments because they did not refer back to Wikipedia rules, then, logically, the closing admin of THIS discussion MUST ALSO reject any !votes in THIS discussion that do not follow the rules for these deletion review discussions:

"Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." -- (italics in origional, from Wikipedia:Deletion review, "Instructions" section)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we must discount editors who seem to violate the rules of a forum, then be consistent.Noroton 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If appeals not to follow Wikipedia policy were disallowed in establishing consensus for deletion discussions, there would at least be a rule clearly stating that. However, we have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to remind editors (and administrators) that rules are not sacrosanct and may, in some instances, be violated to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Consensus is generally the way we decide if a rule violation should be allowed or not. I think everyone should keep in mind this statement from Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy (which is not a policy or guideline and what is said here applies equally to the essay it appears in):

Note that at any point in time, we first establish a consensus, and then if some volunteer takes the time, only then do they write down the established consensus on some page in the project namespace. Some people also write down how they think people should act. Sometimes a small number of people hold discussions or votes to try to tell the rest of wikipedia what to do. Because of this, you should be wary of what you read in the project namespace. It will lag behind, give bad advice, or even be downright wrong. As is true for wikipedia itself, different pages are of differing quality. (from "Project namespace is as reliable as wikipedia itself." section) Noroton 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Quite frankly, the "delete" arguments were no better than the "keep" arguments. The keep arguments that all schools are notable is not a worse argument than a delete argument that schools are not notable. John Vanderberg's argument in the debate was the one which was most coherent of the ones presented, so this looks like a classic "no consensus" case, the closer's opinion notwithstanding. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse until and unless better sources can be found. >Radiant< 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." - quoted from the instructions at the top of this Deletion Review. Many of the opinions endorsing the closure are making statements about the content of the article. If they wanted to participate in the AfD discussion, they were certainly welcome to do so. How one would have !voted should not be used to justify an out-of-process closing. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. My position is that high schools of this size are inherently notable. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and new information: At Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough Consensus it states:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. [...] such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

So WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV all trump consensus and consensus trumps other Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as WP:Notability.

Butseriouslyfolks makes the point that the article had unverified information in it, and that the closing decision should be upheld because the violation of WP:V justifies it. He's convinced me that his position is correct unless the WP:V violation can be fixed.

Under Deletion Review rules, if new information comes forward justifying the article, that can be grounds for overturning the original deletion.

That is now the case.

I've researched and found citations to meet the WP:V objection. See User:Noroton/GoetzVerified This version at my user space has footnotes for everything. I've deleted information that I could not verify. Therefore there is no longer a WP:V violation. The article may not meet notability standards, but the consensus of the AfD was to ignore that in this case.

The closing administrator should completely discount all arguments in this discussion based on Notability violations because notability rules can't trump a consensus to keep. The closing administrator should completely discount arguments in this discussion based on lack of verifiability because I've now shown verifiability.

As soon as the article is restored, I will add the footnotes establishing verifiability. If the closing administreator upholds the original closure, I will re-establish a new article on the same subject that meets WP:V. Noroton 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do not agree that the presence of unsourced assertions is grounds for deletion of an article. My point was that the absence of any sourced assertions violates WP:V, so WP:N could not be satisfied in such cases. -- But|seriously|folks  18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - a way forward - If this is to be a straight overturn and keep/endorse deletion decision then I stick by overturn per my recommendation above. However, I see a middle way. Had this been closed as a 'no consensus' then an immediate second AfD would have been in order. It is clear from the above discussions that opinions are still divided. A middle way would be to overturn but then to relist at AfD in order to seek consensus. TerriersFan 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - another way forward The article has been improved, and I am not sure that a vote at AfD for the article in the present form would be to delete--at the very least, it can certainly be said that there it is not among the worst high school articles. ; so just endorse, but allow re-creation. DGG (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - a third way forward How about closing this as moot, as the article has been revised with WP:N and WP:V in mind. User:Noroton would be free to post his revised version, as he has made a good faith effort to address the policy concerns. Others would be free to relist it at AfD, if they are so moved. -- But|seriously|folks  18:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The article itself is quite unpromising and uninteresting. However, if the AfD participants seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy, I don't see how the closer is justified in closing the AfD in a way that differs extremely from the raw vote count. People who think all high schools are notable should not have that fact held against them; that is a far different view than WP:ILIKEIT. This ought to be a 'No Consensus' result. I would also be happy with any of the three 'Way Forward' positions offered just above: by Terriersfan, DGG, or Butseriouslyfolks. EdJohnston 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

MGTOW (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page has been deleted for 2 years now, its an active movement, its been deleted for false reasons every time. I just created the page, put a hangon notice, and it was deleted AGAIN.

Check out the last argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGTOW

All the discussion was removed also, to cover up why it was removed. This is censorship to stop mens rights, there is no other reason to contest it other than you disagree with it. - IronWolve 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse deletion, this is not AfD redux, and accusations of bad faith do not help your cause. Nor do the threats on the AfD of shutting down Wikipedia with a vandalbot if we don't give in to your demands. Corvus cornix 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I never mentioned a vandalbot or threaten wikipedia. (So why did you state that?)

That archived discussion is over 1 year ago by the last group of guys trying to add MGTOW. Now to 2007, I notice MGTOW doesn't exist and try to add it, answer all the copyrights and notable questions, and put a holdon, and it was deleted within 24 hours! This isnt a sub article, even though its mentioned in the mens rights section, its a philosophy for an active movement, thats been defined for over 2 years, used on all major mens rights forums and blogs. Now that a book was written on it, that should make it notable enough. - IronWolve 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant "you" as in advocates for your cause, who said, I have a serious question: What would you do if someone used a lengthy list of elite proxies to automatically evade your edit bans, and constantly made edits that you guys didn't like faster than you could delete them?, and then went on to make further threats. Do you have reliable sources which prove the notability of the movement which you claim exists? Corvus cornix 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, very hostile attacks. It was equested to make the article notable if I could provide 1 book, book ISBN 0976261316, The Rantings of a Single Male. Which describe the "MGTOW Men Going There Own Way" movement and philosophy. (I had to ask on the mens forums about this book, since only Amazon classifies it as MGTOW) and that took me a day, thats why the speedy deletion was contested, I had to ask EXPERTS. - IronWolve 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you think that my comments were hostile, but I feel hostility towards those who think that they have some sort of Received Judgement For God that Wikipedia must be shut down if it doesn't accede to their view as to the Rightness of their cause. Now, Google shows 122 hits for "men going their own way". Hardly an avalanche. Nothing at Google Books, nothing at Google News. What does the book you mention have to say about MGTOW? Is it a casual mention, a chapter, an entire book? One is also not sufficient, as the criterion is for "multiple" independent sources. Corvus cornix 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I love wikpedia, thats why I use it all the time, and I'm new to mens rights movements. During my own research, the mens rights movement is lacking in books and real articles. I have searched for national mens rights groups, and only found 1. I have found the most popular bloggers and forums, and through the investigation I learned about the MGTOW philosophy and noticed the mens groups using it and its logos. I didn't know what exactly what the MGTOW was, and found the mens activist wiki, which describes it. Now, if we take in account the scope of the size of mens rights (not fathers rights), MGTOW is the major philosophy for the mens movement. I wish I could point to some third party outside mens rights, but there doesnt seem to be any. So, if MGTOW is the major philosphy used by mens groups, and all the mens groups are online, I can only point to that. AS for the book, I do not have a copy and did take another persons words on it. But I do think that grant the smallness of the mens movement, the only philsophy would be the major philosphy, and it is describe in the wikipedia's own article on mens rights. ARGH, I wish there was an major mens rights group I could qoute, but there isn't a (recognized) national mens rights group.... -22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That book The Rantings of a Single Male appears to be self-published, see the "publisher"'s website, hardly a wonderful source. --Stormie 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a long, well-sourced article at Men's rights. Corvus cornix

Men's rights mentions MGTOW, yet MGTOW doesn't exist. /sigh - IronWolve 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse The best that could be provided for sources were "Some Books STRONGLY related to MGTOW theme" . DGG 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Notability requirements were explained in depth, but notability was still not shown. Sancho 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability was proven. When a philosophy is notable to its intended audience, that makes it notable for wikipedia. It does not have to be notable outside its audience which editors are claiming. Since the term MGTOW is a notable term in the mens rights movement, the mens movement is almost entirely online, thus I can use online resources to confirm it via wikipedia's rules for Notability. (Seems I'm playing Catch 22 here, thats why wikipedia's rules says If its born online, it can be proven online.)

* Book ISBN 0976261316 mentions MGTOW by name. Other authors of misandry now support the term MGTOW as term for (A) philosophy for the mens movement.

* Largest non-profit mens rights group, www.ncfm.org supports and uses MGTOW, and links to the MGTOW website. NCFM should be considered a primary resource.

* The term has been proven to be used, and was even discussed in depth in 2006 and was contested at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGTOW - IronWolve 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't dictate to the Wikipedia community what it means for a subject to be notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. You say, "when a philosophy is notable to its indended audience, that makes it notable for Wikipedia". That is not true. You have been asked to read Wikipedia:Notability numerous times. You'll find that there is a strong consensus that a subject has had to have had significant coverage in reliable sources independent from the subject (see Wikipedia:Notability). Also see WP:V for a description of reliable sources: those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Sancho 06:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Notability has been provided. -IronWolve 04:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse - For an active movement this was entirely lacking in good quality reliable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse per DGG, Wikipedia is not the place to promote new movements, it's a place to document established and notable ones. --W.marsh 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Regarding the unjustified deletion of MGTOW - There are plenty of obscure and esoteric topics on Wiki that are not even worth mentioning, but because said topics are politically benign they are allowed to remain. Please at least do us all the favor of coming up with a better lie than "copyright infringement" since the self designated Wiki censors are in the business of trying to smoke screen and diverting public attention. I will assume said suppressors of this entry feel a sense of threat of the implications MGTOW, otherwise this topic would not be constantly removed. One thing is for certain, with or without a Wiki entry, MGTOW is going to make the dam burst despite opposition. The clock ticks...

Ken_Kaniff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Tragic loss, article should have been merged, not deleted Reynolds45 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• You could have come to my talk page first to raise concerns about my closing rather then coming directly here. I closed it as delete rather than merge because there were no sources and the information was therefore effectively unverifiable original research. I have no problem with anything being merged into the Eminen article but the information must be sourced and verifiable. If you can provide proper sources, I'll reverse the close. Otherwise 'Endorse own close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)