Deletion of Men and feminism (2nd nomination)

Comment: being badly written is not in fact grounds for deletion. We assess notability at AFD and notability is asserted by the existence of secondary sources (not just the ones used in the article). And here's just the top 10 on the topic of Men and Feminism: ''Men doing feminism'' by Digby; ''Men and feminism'' by Tarrant; ''Men in feminism'' by Jardine; ''Feminism with men'' by  Schacht & Ewinghttp://books.google.ie/books?id=hxOa05RlS6MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=feminism+with+men&hl=en&sa=X&ei=URFMT-DGJNGn8QODqt2kBA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=feminism%20with%20men&f=false; ''Men and the making of modern British feminism'' by Chernock ''Men's feminism'' by Lopes et al; ''Between men and feminism'' by Porter; ''Misframing men'' by Kimmel; ''Feminism and men'' by  Schacht & Ewing (different book to the other with a similar titlehttp://books.google.ie/books?id=huYpAQAAMAAJ&q=men+feminism&dq=men+feminism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GBFMT-bdCdCn8QPFxtWvDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgU); and ''Feminism and masculinities'' by Murphy. Of the 3 policies listed by the nom WP:COATRACK & WP:CONTENTFORK are irrelevant & not applicable; the NPOV objections are unexplained & unclear (the article deals with men's movements both pro- and anti- feminism). Yes this is a very badly written |summary article and it needs serious work but that aint grounds for deletion and on the sole issue of |notability there's a library of secondary sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY||WP:NOTE)