Deletion of Paper Abortion

Comment: and '''Delete''' - Merge selectively to Paternity (law) (and possibly to Parental responsibility or Men's rights movement) and delete more or less per {{u|Jytdog}}. There is a notable subject about the rights and responsibilities of fathers. We already have an article on that in paternity (law), which could certainly use expansion. Then there's a |neologism "Paper Abortion" which ''very'' few of the acceptable sources even ''mention'', which is ''about'' paternity (law)|paternity with a provocative MRM rhetorical spin. In other words, per  and  we don't need pages about neologisms when there's already an article about the bigger, far better sourced subject. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO||WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: This article needs significant work, but is clearly notable. I'll put my hand up to do a bunch of copy editing to bring the article in line with . EDIT: i have done considerable work in bringing the article up to scratch. While many of the sources are Danish, and the article needs some more english language sources, it is unsurprising that many of the sources on the subject are Scandinavian, as the movement seems to have originated there. The article has been the subject of dozens of edits in the last week by multiple contributors, to the point that it is hardly recognisable from the article that was nominated for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_abortion&diff=711828501&oldid=710036986. As a result, many of the early 'delete' arguments are now irrelevant. This is now a case of  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:DONOTDEMOLISH||WP:BATHWATER)

Comment: See  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The nomination is based on the premise that ''"multiple editors"'' agree that the article is currently hopelessly POV, and that it is pointless to try to fix this perceived POV problem.  When a topic is supported by verifiable reliable sources that establish it notability, deletion over contributors failing to reach a consensus on a POV version has always been a last resort.  When I checked the talk page for myself I found the discussion the nominator refers to '''is only hours old.'''  In that discussion nominator calls the current state of the article ''"a ridiculous screed"''.  That is not what I found, at all.  I found an article written in the idiosyncratic style of someone who was not a native speaker of English.  I did not detect any attempt to use the wikipedia for a ''"screed"''.  I will remind nominator that ikipedia is not censored.  Nominator's statements on the talk page, and here, give the appearance that his or her objection is to coverage of a genuine real phenomenon -- one they don't like.  I have asserted, over the years, that there is no topic that can't be covered from a neutral point of view, if there are references to support its notability, and good faith contributors willing to make the effort
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: Topic is notable - there are a boatload of sources out there on "paper abortion" and this is definitely something being discussed. Where the topic is notable, but the article is not well written, the solution is to keep the article and improve it, not delete the article. Original deletion argument sounds to me like  which is not appropriate grounds to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: and merge to Paternity (law).  This is Gamergate DS territory so strong, consensus-based admin action is important here.  This topic fails  by a very long way, especially with regard to |independent sources discussing it.  There is probably enough for a section in Paternity (law) but that's it, for now at least
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INDY)