Deletion of Minister for Men (2nd nomination)

Comment: Like s, problems with  can be, well, rinsed out. I've done some cleanup on the article.  is inapplicable: In a nutshell, it requires that an "article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It expressly contemplates "articles specifically about a minority viewpoint...." Put another way, it's an ''internal'' policy, addressing how much weight is given to various views within an article, as opposed to a policy like , an ''external'' policy addressing whether an article ought to exist at all. The  issue is tricky, but, mutatis mutandis, I'm persuaded by the references collected in the previous AFD that we have sufficient sourcing for at least a brief article (cf. RVE). Finally, |notability.  is the only applicable guideline, and this article skates about as close to the line as I get before m:Deletionism supplies the rule of decision. We have coverage from the BBC, the ''Telegraph'', and even from across the Atlantic (the ''New York Times''), along with some incidental coverage (direct and indirect) in other outlets, but it's watery fare. All things considered, I lean ever so slightly towards keeping; I could be pushed either way with good notability arguments.- Simon Dodd
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:SOAP||WP:UNDUE||WP:N||WP:FRINGE||WP:NRVE||WP:N||WP:GNG)

Comment: Thusfar, I see three users supporting deletion, (the nominator, RegentsPark, and Drmies) and five users who oppose deletion (myself, Artw, Mercurywoodrose, Mas 18 dl, and Pointillist). All the users opposing deletion except Artw have either predicated their opposition to deletion on a merge and redirect ("M&R"), or expressed support for a M&R when the nomination closes. Given this state of play, two things seem clear: that there isn't a consensus to delete, and one is unlikely to form in the day's run time left on this AFD. We're headed toward a no-consensus close. Can I invoke  to propose that we save ourselves time and bother, close the AFD now, and add the M&R templates to this article and Men's rights?- Simon Dodd
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)