Deletion of Otherkin (2nd nomination)

Comment: given the reliable sources found by NinjaRobotPirate. Multiple RS show notability per  and with them, an ability to write at least a modest verifiable article. That is all that matters at AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''Very Weak Merge Therianthropy'''). Synopsis: This article is a long-standing problematic item which is deeply polarizing due to it's lack of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics|factual basis and being primarily sourced upon, among other things, |unverifiable |sources, |skewed |original research/|bollocks based in |fan cruft (it is suggested within this debate page that there exists the possibility that it is in-fact not associated with furry, but it quickly becomes clear that it is in-fact analogous/identical to the group described in the Therianthropy page; this bears critical importance, as a |redundant duplicate of an existing article with significantly worse sourcing, should be merged into the better of the two as a side-note at the minimum). As a page, it has historically been overseen by numerous persons who insist on pushing out factual information or alternative explanations based in reason in favour of their own |biased perspectives which bear no brunt of critical scrutiny under their purview. Previously it has been claimed this is an "wp:editorial|established belief system" with "wp:weasel|many adherents", but is at best the |outermost extremes of |fringe beliefs. The overseeing group has also notoriously been |uncivil (notably a long standing contributor has been outright banned for introducing various points of bias and non-neutral perspectives to various articles) and it takes no time to see that many of the participants prefer to |bully rather then build the content of this article in order to push a |specific narrative that suits them best. Attempts to edit the article have been met with much resistance and outright reversion feuds (despite numerous edits over the past year, the article remains much unchanged, even ignoring typical spam or trolling), as well as continuous antagonistic behaviour by those with a wp:vested|vested interest (and in some cases a provable outright wp:coi|conflict of interest) in a narrative which is wp:n|unsuitable for wp:v|wikipedia. Much of the news sources are rife with wp:v|unverified/unverifiable wp:said|claims, sensationalist phrasing/statements and imagery, and of great importance lacking any real wp:notability|notability or |sustained interest. It is through these facts that it is strongly evident this is little more then a wp:NEO|neologism, having not had sufficient backing from reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SOURCE||WP:NPOV||WP:OR||WP:BOLLOCKS||WP:FAN||WP:REDUNDANT||WP:BIAS||WP:N||WP:FRINGE||WP:CIVIL||WP:BULLY||WP:NPOV||WP:SUSTAINED)