Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for Men (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Simon, 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:SOAP||WP:UNDUE||WP:N||WP:FRINGE||WP:NRVE||WP:N||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)