Parental rights movement: The page simply seems redundant given these existing pages: LGBT grooming conspiracy theory Anti-LGBT rhetoric 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States Florida Parental Rights in Education Act page.  Edit: GhostOfDanGurney has also proposed a merge to anti-gender movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenomonoz ( talk • contribs ) 01:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/merge?  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sexuality and gender .  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is already covered in 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States in much greater context and is a WP:POVFORK , it doesn’t need this standalone page as the issue is already sufficiently covered there as well as the separate Don't Say Gay article, so delete per WP:NOPAGE .  Raladic ( talk ) 04:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This ! vote doesn't account for the fact that this is also a thing in Canada.  That simple fact makes this not a POVFORK.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It still is a fork off from LGBT grooming conspiracy theory which is a further detail breakout about that section, which is linked in the article I referenced.  So just because one of four articles that the nominator listed is more specifically about the US, doesn't negate the point that tbe topic is in fact already covered at great lengths in the others.  Raladic ( talk ) 05:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By this logic, we should be creating a new article--like the don't say gay bill article-- for each instance of this occurrence for all of the mentioned provinces.  MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 12:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I was expecting this to be a delete but the Google News search was enough to persuade me otherwise.  This does seem to be a thing and this does seem to be what people are calling it.  The Google Scholar links complicate things a bit as some of the hits there show the term going back to the late 1990s.  The earlier uses seem to be far less explicitly anti-LGBT but I assume that there is at least some continuity here and the rhetoric, initially couched in euphemisms, has gradually becoming more and more "mask off" as anti-LGBT and anti-intellectual sentiment has become normalised.  I think that there is probably more to this topic than the article covers rather than less and that speaks against a merge, particularly if this movement is not exclusively anti-LGBT.  If it seeks to limit access to sex education more generally then that would make the suggested merge targets untenable.  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 04:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States and it's sub article LGBT grooming conspiracy theory already covers the topic, as well as the related policies such as book bans in the greater context though, which is an important point of WP:NOPAGE as many of the current anti-LGBT movements by the far-right have to been seen as a whole which this sub-topic cannot explain sufficiently.  Raladic ( talk ) 04:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment "anti-LGBT and anti-intellectual sentiment has become normalised" This political movement seems to be specifically transphobic , rather than anti-LGBT.  And anti-intellectualism has a long history in the United States, as pointed by its main article.  " John Traphagan of the University of Texas attributes this to a culture of anti-intellectualism, noting that nerds and other intellectuals are often stigmatized in American schools and popular culture. At universities, student anti-intellectualism has resulted in the social acceptability of cheating on schoolwork, especially in the business schools, a manifestation of ethically expedient cognitive dissonance rather than of academic critical thinking ."  Dimadick ( talk ) 07:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In which case the article should be broadened and maybe renamed into 2020s anti-intellectual movement as a more neutral term, rather than WP:WHITEWASHing a political term that far-right conservatives are trying to normalize, which can instead redirect to the section there.   This is simular to the broader article about the Origins of the American Civil War , which discussed the fact that the wrongful argument of States rights was tried to be used, but in actuality was a disguise - this here seems like a similar case of disguising the topic of suppressing minorities under the guise of another "rights" pretense, which should be discussed as part of the wider topic.  Raladic ( talk ) 14:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - covered by CBC News [59] [60] as a movement that exists in Canada.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is already some reference about this in LGBT grooming conspiracy theory from 2022, before this was copied to Canada with reference to an article ( [61] ) that warned about exactly that, which can be further expanded over there.  Again, it doesn't require this standalone duplicate article.  Raladic ( talk ) 05:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Anti-gender movement per below comment ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Google Scholar suggests that this somewhat of an underground movement that pre-dates the recent American political events.  Also, this is not necessarily just a North American phenomenon.  There have been similar activist groups in other countries for years.  The article needs a more global view, not deletion.  - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 08:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Most of the articles in Google Scholar do not refer to LGBT issues at all.  For example, here .  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - despite what others have mentioned, the suggestion WP:ATD-M doesn't apply here, this is a growing article that is likely to continue to be expanded.  MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 12:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh, I think it would be better if it was merged into the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States page and fear that if this has its own page, it will only promote misinformation, apart from being unnecessary.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 14:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree, I do not think the sections on Canada should be merged into an article about a movement in the United States MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 14:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Further, the potential for misinformation is not a good reason to prevent WP:COMMONNAME from taking precedence here.  If people are searching for parental rights then this should come up in the search results and explain how it is an anti-trans conservative movement.  It's clear that's what people are using, by the aforementioned Google News search.  MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 15:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename if kept This is a blantantly anti-LGBT movement disguised as as parental rights, and using this name makes it a POV fork of the above articles, to which it may also be merged .  The article is not explicit enough that the name is propaganda.  Parental rights to do what?  To harass LBGT youth and restrict their education and healthcare.  Reminds me of saying the civil war was about states' rights without mentioning what was the right for the state to do.  I don't think that because it has spread to Canada means it needs to be a standalone article and a merge may still be appropriate; perhaps 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States needs a complimentary 2020s anti-LGBT movement in Canada ?  Reywas92 Talk 13:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This does intrigue me, however we would need a redirect from parental rights, but we could follow the same model as Pro-Life .  It is clear that what you've summarised is what conservative commentators are trying to accomplish with this being a dog-whistle, so I do think it's valuable to include the language because that's what's being used in the news and sources .  MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand Reywas92's frustration but I can't agree with this argument for renaming.  First up, we have to call things by what they are actually called, per WP:COMMONNAME , even when those names are blatant misnomers.  Secondly, we want to help our readers to find the right article as easily as possible.  If they hear somebody talking about the "parental rights movement", think it sounds confusing, and decide to look it up on Wikipedia then we want them to find the information they want either in the place that they expect to find it or redirected from there.  It is not for us to impose our own name on it.  Of course, it would be different if there already was a more neutral alternative name or term, as with "Pro-Life" redirecting to Anti-abortion movements.  I think that is what people are thinking when they argue for folding this into those other articles.  It is an arguable point but I don't think they map exactly enough for this to be a good idea.  Particularly if it is true that this movement is not exclusively anti-LGBT and that is has roots going back a few decades, this would seem to be separate from, although unarguably related to, those other topics.  So, unless there is a better name that actually satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, I think we are stuck with the current name.  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually now reading the google scholar link that Zenomonoz linked further up about Parental Rights movement from 2005 - it looks like this was a totally different and entirely unrelated issue that has absolutely no overlap with the current dogwhistle use of the term in current politics, which means we are entering ambiguous article title and content territory, plus then we should examine whether there is any link really, or just a reuse of the same term that was used and in that case, it does still look like the modern discourse is entirely anti-LGBT.  So this article then has to be completely re-written to talk about that movement from 2005 and then the modern re-use of the term, but for entirely different grounds if it wants to discuss the term and not just current events.  Raladic ( talk ) 05:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This modern movement is not just in the United States, and it's not just anti-LGBTQ.  A merge to any of the pages mentioned above would be inapposite.  The article should be expanded to cover the ways in which parental rights advocates are seeking to restrict teaching in schools about racism, white supremacy, and sexism.  A note to those looking for more sources: though our titles are drawing a distinction between the Parents' rights movement , focused on parental custody, and this article, focused on schools, many sources about the school-related movement are using the term "parents' rights".  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 13:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article to add more on the ways in which the parental rights movement has pushed changes that have nothing to do with anti-LGBTQ sentiment.  There is much more to be added, but the article already now talks about anti-sex-ed, anti-DEI, anti-"CRT" (the boogeyman CRT, not the real deal), and anti-antiracist work by those who say they are fighting for "parental rights" or "parents' rights".  I don't think supporters of a merge have grappled enough with how distinct this topic is from the anti-LGBTQ movements.  To frame it in WP:MERGE terms, a merge is inappropriate because "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines".  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 14:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States .  This should NOT be its own page.  I'm not sure why so many other people on here are voting to keep.  Its dispiriting.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 14:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where should the content about Canada be placed?  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It can be folded in, since the discourse in Canada is a copycat from the US; if need be, the article title could be renamed to be more broad, or a separate article on Canada could’ve started.  I would also refer you to WP:WHATABOUT as you keep bringing up Canada as a reason against anyone who suggested a merge, it is not a valid reason to prevent a merge, instead we find a consensus to roll it into the article there or make a separate article for it.  Raladic ( talk ) 15:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is either a misrepresentation of OTHERSTUFF, an essay which I have referred many other users to before, or of my comments.  I am not saying "this article should be kept because article X exists."  I am saying, "this article contains X cited content on a discrete subject, therefore a merge is inappropriate per WP:NOMERGE ."  I'll also go further and say that the improvements made to the article over the last day have demonstrated that this topic passes GNG on its own, supporting the NOMERGE argument.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't really a policy based response.  Also remember to WP:Assume good faith and WP:Be kind before commenting that you call peoples judgements "dispiriting" Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Ireland .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm sufficiently convinced this is a separate (though arguably related) topic to 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States and the rest of the articles mentioned by nominator.  3 reasons for this:  a) the article has a distinct focus on a notable international political phenomenon of parents pushing for what they deem 'parental rights', which is separate from any broader anti-LGBT movement in the United States.  b) Said phenomenon is labelled and discussed as a distinct movement by reliable news and sources .  c) it exists outside of the US and this is supported by good sources - I would say the international coverage needs to be expanded but deleting this article would only further the US-centric bias.  I'm not convinced by those above who say that international occurrences of the movement are simply imitating the US, as this doesn't seem to be supported by sources and indeed reflects a US-bias itself.  Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 07:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - Something I had not realised earlier, is that this article has only been in mainspace existence for a week.  We cannot possibly make a fair judgement about the notability of a topic based on an article that is still under construction and by no means a complete covering of the topic.  I strongly encourage all editors to do some off wiki research and read some sources before they make calls such as This is already covered in 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States in much greater context .  Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 08:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If kept, I think the scope would need to be expanded because "parental rights" is deemed to apply to many things other than children being trans.  I don't think that the specific anti-trans parent movement should exist separate from other pages about anti-trans movements because I doubt that is actually a separate topic, and risks becoming a POVFORK.  ( t · c ) buidhe 14:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Buidhe This is similar to what was said above ( it's not just anti-LGBTQ. A merge to any of the pages mentioned above would be inapposite. The article should be expanded to cover the ways in which parental rights advocates are seeking to restrict teaching in schools about racism, white supremacy, and sexism ) and I agree.  The page just needs time to be expanded and improved, it's too soon for a deletion on what is a promising start to an article about a notable topic.  Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 07:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Another article that wasn't pointed out before that I think this article is actually much more of a POVFORK/ WP:WHITEWASH of is Anti-gender movement .  A lot of what this article is currently trying to convey either is or can be covered in that article.  I have adjusted my vote and struck comments accordingly as that article is not regional in scope.  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is indeed a good find and is already covering the specific essence that the current article is covering, but Anti-gender movement is already covering it much more broadly, including in timeline and how that term as used there also was used much more broadly.  I support your suggestion for a merge to Anti-gender movement (and subsequent redirect) with a subsection added there for the US/Canada "Parental Right" (which are really a whitewash term used to mask their anti-gender movement as outlined in that article.  Raladic ( talk ) 02:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced they are talking about the same thing.  The anti-gender movement article has literally no results for "parents" or "Parental rights" and only has minor discussion of schools at all.  Instead the anti-gender movement seems to be about an intellectual/moral dispute focusing on a perceived threat of gender ideology and its influence on (non-school) government instutions.  I can see how they might seem related, and indeed may well be related, but for us to claim that the two movements are in fact the same thing without any sources linking the two would be a classic example of WP:SYNTH .  Strongly object to this proposed merge.  Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 07:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I found one more article that has topic overlap with the article here - Transgender genocide which in the United States section calls out with some references to scholars including a report by Yale School of Medicine and WPATH that have called out that some of the current "movements for rights" which are really Healthcare bans are just veiled acts amounting to Genocide "Anti-transgender health care legislation is not about protections for children but about eliminating transgender persons on a micro and macro scale." - this just further highlights the continued attempts to WP:WHITEWASH this under the pretense of a movement, but we should not give it more legitacy, but rather consider redirect into one of the many relevant articles cited in this Afd that do call it out for what it is.  Raladic ( talk ) 05:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just think it's essential to note that WP:WHITEWASH is about editors on Wikipedia trying to whitewash events, it is most certainly not an instruction to go against WP:COMMONNAME or reliable sources so that we [do] not give it more legitacy .  Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 05:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In this case it is far right politicians trying to whitewash a term to hide  the true agenda, this may actually be something that may require a broader RfC - when should we deviate from WP:COMMONNAME when it may appear to give legitimacy to active harm WP:ADVOCACY , especially when like in this case it may cause active harm that will lead to people losing access to life saving Healthcare as documented by the professional medical community, so I think WP:IGNOREALL could apply here to get past the commonname policy.  Raladic ( talk ) 05:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Raladic , firstly I want to say I'm taking this very seriously and  I agree that Wikipedia's first duty is to its readers (including their health and wellbeing).  That said, I completely fail to see how having this article, as it currently is will will lead to people losing access to life saving Healthcare .  You may not like this political movement, you may consider it far right politicians trying to whitewash a term to hide the true agenda but to say that Wikipedia should not cover it in line with RS sources because that may "legitimise" it is (I mean this in the nicest way possible, as I genuinely think you mean well) POV-pushing and censorship, neither of which are allowed on Wikipedia.  Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 06:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: This subject still needs some discussion.  We title articles the terms used by reliable souces, whatever that might be.  Of course, presence of a stand-alone article on a subject does DOESN'T (big mistake on my part) imply endorsement by Wikipedia.  But I still don't see a consensus here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename at minimum The current name is a complete misnomer and what the term doesn't mean.  Not even getting into the content, the actual article title needs to redirect somewhere more appropriate, not describe this as a gotcha to the actual content.  Nate • ( chatter ) 19:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sympathetic to this view.  I think a post-AfD requested move discussion would be worthwhile, though it would be nice to talk through some options at the talk page first.  I wasn't looking for this specifically, so I couldn't tell you which sources exactly, but many of those I've encountered have cast doubt on the idea that it's "parents' rights" that are really at the heart of this wave of activism.  It's hard to know if there's a common-ish name out there that we could use as a replacement, but I wouldn't be surprised.  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 19:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to get too into a RM discussion pre-emptively, but I don't think that a name change is correct at this time.  While I agree that this isn't really a parent's rights movement and that it's become more of a dog-whistle, I do believe that this is the WP:COMMONNAME , at least for now, and that to the casual reader looking for more information, they are better served to land on this page than a redirect to a more broad article but vague and doesn't address the modern use of the term and the movement it describes.  But I agree, that any potential of this would be better suited for a talk page discussion for consensus building.  MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 16:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If by your admission, this isn't actually a movement but a dog whistle, then the article as it stands has he be rewritten entirely if it were to stand on its own as it does not make this clear at all - it pretends to be a real movement, whereas many medical experts have made it clear that it isn't, which this article doesn't mention at all, but is mentioned on Transgender genocide as I had already pointed out further above.  It just mentions some description from the Winnipeg Free press and Salon (and it throwing shade at salon in the article itself), so the article is very clearly trying to show a slanted WP:POVFORK instead of accurately showing the strong opposition to the term as it stands.  The merge should be discussed here and now as a WP:ATD-M as Wikipedia works on consensus and many people have brought up the merge in this Afd, so there is no point to start another disjointed discussion outside of this.  Raladic ( talk ) 14:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If by your admission, this isn't actually a movement but a dog whistle, Sorry, that's not what I meant.  It absolutely has become a movement, per the sources on the article.  What I've said (albeit, maybe poorly), and as the article has been written, is that the movement isn't about parent's rights as so far as an anti-trans movement.  Not to jump ahead in my argument then, but then the situation is to still include the term Parental Rights in the lead.  then the article as it stands has he be rewritten entirely if it were to stand on its own as it does not make this clear at all - it pretends to be a real movement, If that's the case, then I think the proper course of action would be to follow the same style as Pro life and include Parental Rights Movement in the lead after a rename and have a redirect, but I have to say I disagree on your assessment.  Parental Rights movement is the common name and people are using it to describe the movement and goals as laid out in the article.  I do think the article is clear on the harms done to trans youth; unless you're saying it isn't going far enough—if that's the case, then I find your arguments citing WP:POVFORK are unhelpful, without actually finding issues in the text.  At this point, I want to take a step back and recognize that we're both involved here because we have the same goal: the betterment of Wikipedia.  What I'm trying to get at, is that I believe there should be a location on Wikipedia for the term Parental Rights.  The reason I made the article is because I noticed an increase in its usage (especially in Canada) and could not find a resource summarizing what the term parental rights meant by those who were using it, and how it was being used.  What it is is a common term that people are using, and third parties looking to understand it more (the first thing the general public will do is go to Wikipedia) should be informed that it is an Anti-trans movement—as far as I can tell everyone here agrees with that.  The problem I have with the aforementioned proposed merges, is that this exact use case—the notification to parents of their children's wishes to use pronouns that differ with their gender assigned at birth—presents (1) a distinct use case by those using the term, that (2) is prolific and sustained and has obviously become the common name, and (3) presents a distinct set of issues that, while related, differ from the other broad articles proposed as potential merges.  Because of that, I have to say that I think that this is an acceptable version of Wikipedia:Content forking and not specifically WP:POVFORK Thanks for hearing me out and not biting; I appreciate your discussion on the matter.  MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, my point is that the article does not make it clear enough and seems to trivialize some of the issues including the ommission in the entire lead of gender affirming care bans created under the pretense of "Parental rights" and only talks about pronoun use.  What Republican politicians are doing under the banner of "Parental rights" is restricting access to life saving health care.  Even the GOP debate just yesterday made it clear that this isn't a new movement but a dog-whistle and is there to restrict access to life saving Healthcare - [62] .  The fact that restricting health care access like this will lead to increase deaths is proven by medical science including this recent study - [63] .  Again, that is why this could be discussed better within the context of which it is happening in one of the other articles, but if it were to stand as its own article, this needs to be much clearer.  To make it clear that this attack on access happened even before the modern term use, here is an article from Forbes from 2021 on the issue, without the term, but the same issue - [64] .  The point being, it has to be discussed in the greater context and it's effects, which is hard to do in this narrow POVFORK thst is only trying to talk about the modern term.  We could follow your suggestion of doing the same as Pro life, in which case, merging this content to Anti-gender movement with a bolded alternative term of Parental Rights movement (and this redirecting there) would be fine and it can discuss how the modern term is used within the greater context of the anti-gender movement.  Raladic ( talk ) 02:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: However people feel about this movement, it has received enough independent and significant coverage in secondary sources to warrant an article.  WP:POVFORK is a fair argument, but this subject is not exclusively related to the pages mentioned.  Any cleanup to remove unrelated content can occur outside of the AfD.  Discussion regarding a possible name change can occur on the article talk page.  User:Let'srun 03:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This movement seems to be opposed to the teaching of both LBGTQ and Black Lives Matter/racial equity subject matter in public schools.  I don’t think there is a possible redirect, especially with the mountain of continuing news about the subject.  Thriley ( talk ) 04:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Comment - Avoiding rehashing all of the same arguments as above however, in addition: I think the article has continued to grow since its AfD nomination.  MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 12:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm assuming this is just a comment, since you've already ! voted?  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for not bitting!  I'm still getting used to things around here.  MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 13:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep