my main argument against its inclusion is the way its stated that is an entire see also section was created specifically for the inclusion of one not terribly relevant link and said link is the only one listed in that section it really seems like someone is trying to make a point here i am going to remove it for now simply because that's the correct course of action whenever there is a dispute over the inclusion of new content in an article if a consensus forms to include it so be it but until then since it is being objected to by several users it shouldn't be in just yet i hope no one is offended by this i'm aware it looks like i'm acting in self interest since i oppose it but i assure you i'm not let's just reach a consensus first speak