Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intersex rights in India


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was redirect to LGBT rights in India. The key issue is that this is a CFORK and content should all sit at LGTB rights which should include an intersex/Hajira section. Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Intersex rights in India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Hijra" (Hijra (South Asia)) is the term that is legally, officially and socially used in entire South Asia for referring those who are intersex, transgender, eunuchs. According to all scholarly sources, there is no special case for transgender, intersex, because they are treated as "Hijra" in South Asia. A strong example is that we don't have Transgender rights in India but we have Transgender rights in the United States, because there is no special category for "transgender" in South Asia. This simple fact makes this article totally unnecessary and legible for deletion, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of a original thought, i.e. differentiating intersex with hijra for a South Asian country, that is contrary to every official and scholarly sources.

Now looking at the content of article, the claims about human rights abuses are already covered on Hijra (South_Asia), Gopi Shankar Madurai has been mentioned twice but a there is lengthy amount of content dedicated to Madurai on Hijra (South Asia). Capitals00 (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per below comments, the subject is already covered on LGBT rights in India, making it even more unnecessary to have this article. Capitals00 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 05:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 05:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant article. The Guardian: says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." Also supported by scholarly sources, there are zero sources that would claim that intersex are not Hijra, when it comes to India and South Asia. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CFORK as well. Hijra (South Asia) is the main article that could be expanded, this article violates WP:CFORK because "content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject." Anmolbhat (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep enough RS cited by the article discuss Indian intersex rights as it's own distinct concept for this article to pass GNG.Rab V (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Care to provide a source for supporting your claim? No it's not a distinct concept, and GNG is not applied on forks and original researches. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, like I said before these are all in the article, they are clearly labeled in their titles already. Check sources 3 through 17, 20 and 21 in the article. Clearly enough to show this article is not OR and to invalidate the claim in this deletion proposal that intersex is not a term used to discuss people of India. Also not a fork since according to WP:FORK the article should copy but change part of the material of the other articles. Though there is some overlap in topic, I don't see any parts that are copied with small alterations. This article also covers topics not in the hijra article, like the treatment of intersex infants and intersex athletes, enough to show again this is a distinct article. Rab V (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But they are all Hijra, so write about it on Hijra (South Asia). Article is an original research and a fork because it could be covered on the main article but it was created by someone who was unaware of Hijra (South Asia), that article is better written and already covers better opinions than this. That is what the nomination is saying if you even read it. Avoid making WP:ILIKEIT argument. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I'm making an argument based on personal opinion, I am only citing sources and wikipedia policy without any indication of my own feelings on this topic. I am confused how this article counts as OR when there are RS cited backing all claims in this article, is there some confusion on what is in WP:NOR? Similarly, how is this WP:FORK when this doesn't seem to be mostly a copy of another article, instead it covers topics that don't seem to be in the hijra article? Fork clearly refers to articles that mostly copy each other. For example Lesbian is not a fork of LGBT, even though lgbt is a category that includes lesbian, since the lesbian article doesn't copy from the lgbt article. Rab V (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The seperate claim from Anmolbhat of content forking also seems untrue. Though intersex people are a subgroup of hijra people, the two groups are not the same. The articles are not "treating the same subject", the criteria for WP:CFORK. Helpfully WP:CFORK says spinoff articles are OK in Wikipedia and that seems to apply here. In particular from CFORK this bit seems to be about this exact situation "As an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general, a filmography forking from an article about an actor or director or a sub-genere of an aspect of culture such as a musical style." In particular, intersex rights would be like a subgenre of the larger cultural concept of hijra. Rab V (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy goes by reliable sources and all reliable sources say that intersex are Hijra when it comes to South Asia. That's how this article is redundant and a fork because main article had to be expanded instead. "Lesbian is not a fork of LGBT", wrong argument. Soon you will say "Dog is not fork of Animal." The Guardian says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." That's how, if any article has been separately created about eunuchs, intersex and transgender concerning South Asian countries, it will be redundant and violation of CFORK. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are misunderstanding each other? Would we both agree that dog is not a fork of animal? Sure dogs are a subgroup of animals but the fork wikipedia policy refers to copied content and not subgroups. That's why dog has a seperate article from animal, since it's not a fork in the wikipedia policy sense. In the same way, intersex people are a subgroup of hijra people, since not all hijra people are intersex. Rab V (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But they cannot be differed in South Asia because they are Hijra and intersex people are already mentioned on Hijra article, which is really enough. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I think I get where you are coming from. There seems to be articles that do differentiate between intersex and hijra people, for example when discussing corrective genital surgery on infants which isn't an issue for hijra people in general. The question of if this topic is covered enough already in another article is trickier. Since the there is unique information in this article not in the hijra one that is supported by RS and specific to intersex people, I think it's OK to make the case this article can exist on it's own. Another way to deal with this unique information is to merge it into the hijra article, this is mostly a stylistic choice imho. Is it better to have this information all on one page or would too much info specifically about intersex people clutter the hijra article which is about a wider group? I lean towards separate pages when RS discusses intersex issues seperately from hijra, but both ideas have merit.Rab V (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had asked, Care to provide a source for supporting your claim? So far you have nothing to show. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I referred to over 10 sources earlier but maybe the format was confusing. I was citing references by how they are numbered in article. For example, citation 4 is this one but all of citations 3 through 15 are specifically about intersex people in India.Rab V (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but you can find better amount of material for eunuchs, transgenders. Still you won't find a source that differs them from Hijra. If this continued then someone will create Eunuchs rights in India, Transgender rights in India, and the small problem will get so big that it will not be possible to solve. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The source I linked above talks about intersex issues in particular, not about wider hijra issues and does not use the word hijra. I think all of 3 through 15 are about issues specific to intersex people instead of the broader hijra community.Rab V (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a misguided nomination. The sources in the article, referred to by Rab V above, clearly discuss the specific issue of Intersex rights, without necessarily conflating them with the rights of Hijras. In stating that Intersex people are not a separate category, the OP is a) wrong, and b) themselves engaged in original research; it matters not what they think the overlap between the two labels is, but what the sources think. Furthermore, even if "Hijra" and "Intersex" were interchangeable labels in a South Asian context, that is no reason at all not to have a main article discussing the label, its history, demography, the people who fall under it, etc, and a spinoff discussing their rights in India. Vanamonde (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT? The Guardian: says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." Obviously they are interchangeable and not separate in South Asia. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a complete misreading of both my comment and the Guardian piece, so I have nothing further to add here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, otherwise it would be easier for you to stick to reliable source than making up your own opinion. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as duplicate article. (WP:CFORK) --RaviC (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep nomination appears to be based upon a misreading of the texts. For example, The Guardian: says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." The verb “can” indicates a range of possibilities. If the concepts of intersex and hijra were equated in the article, it would have used the verb to be. Similar issues are encountered in the citations provided on the Talk page. Regarding the claim made about Transgender rights in India, note that Transgender rights in Tamil Nadu exists and Raymond3023 attempted to delete it in recent days. This nomination is misguided and may be politically motivated. Trankuility (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weren't you modifying your own comment after they had been already replied? Because you don't have enough competence to understand the things, it is really not my fault or the nominator's, it is only your fault. You were always confusing Hijra with transgenders on talk page, which shows your lack of understanding of these terms. You had been misrepresenting sources on talk page and it was taking you only 2 minutes to read all dozens of the sources that I was providing. Before this becomes a conduct issue, you need to reconsider. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the letter 2 to 4 in my own comment when I read the additional citations. That is acceptable. I note you have just now changed the name of the article Transgender Rights in Tamil Nadu. Trankuility (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not acceptable because you can't change your comment per WP:REDACTED when it has been already replied, though for real you never read any sources, otherwise you wouldn't be marginalizing Hirja with transgender. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Making personal attacks about another editor’s competence and good faith based on a trivial update to a comment is not appropriate or constructive. Please focus on the arguments, not the person.--Trystan (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the CFORK creator not to claim others having ulterior motives behind AFD in place of petty nitpicking. Raymond3023 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a classic case of WP:CFORK that would lead to the creation of more redundant articles. There is no need of a separate article just for writing 3 or 6 lines. desmay (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sufficient sources to warrant keeping this article as a valid subtopic of Hijra. The Hijra article is already a bit on the long side, and merging this material back into it would not be desirable. Hijra could be updated to refer to this more in-depth article on intersex rights per WP:SS.--Trystan (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 50k bytes are nowhere "long side". And this small article was already covered on LGBT rights in India like below vote mentions, there is no reason to keep the article. Also how come this is your first AFD participation since last 20 months? Raymond3023 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To update my comment: The content in this article isn't found in LGBT rights in India, which discusses transgender rights in some depth, but not intersex rights. In particular, content unique to this article includes: the Nanda source discussing whether Hijra are intersex or not, the discussion of intersex births, and the issue of athlete gender verification. A merge to LGBT rights in India (currently 49k) would be possible, though I think it works better as a stand-alone article.--Trystan (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nanda says intersex are hijra so you have got it totally wrong. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an oversimplification. Nanda also discusses intersex children raised as male. Given that her topic is hijra (which she defines as "a religious community of men who dress and act like women and whose culture centres on the worship of Bahuchara Mata"), she would have no reason to discuss intersex issues outside of that definition, like the discussion in this article of women athletes. That content isn't found in any other article. It's not a fork of an alternate version of the same discussion in another article. It's sourced. So why are we debating deleting it entirely from WP?--Trystan (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK says "content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts," Nanda in her book "Neither Man nor Woman - The Hijras of India", discusses intersex, eunuchs and transgenders as Hijra, but so we have, under the article of Hijra and LGBT in India and should continue, than having separate article. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete already described on LGBT rights in India, not just on Hijra. LGBT itself covers concepts of Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex. We should really don't expect creation of POV forks like Eunuchs rights in India, Transgender rights in India, Lesbian rights in India, Bisexual rights in India, Queer rights in India. This article is factually incorrect and made in violation of WP:CONTENTFORK. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Deletion would be a good start. I would further suggest that all these newly created Intersex in (country) articles should be deleted or redirected to the main LGBT rights articles. Because they are all created by one user called Trankuility, a few months ago in violation of WP:CONTENTFORK because he didn't expand the main LGBT rights articles and these intersex rights articles are not important enough to have standalone articles. For example, much notable subjects like Gay rights by country redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory, while Gay rights in the United States redirects to LGBT rights in the United States, hence there is no reason why a less notable subject like Intersex rights in the United States should not be deleted or redirected.  D4iNa4 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and D4iNa4. Article fails all the points of WP:NOPAGE, and instead of helping readers understand the topic, we are creating confusions. Ultimately a small new article that is WP:CFORK of LGBT rights in India and Hijra (South Asia). Also agree that each of these latest article creations about "Intersex rights in country" are unwarranted and doesn't need separate article. Lorstaking (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. &mdash;  MBL  Talk 03:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Rab V above makes a convincing case and provides more than enough sources for distinguishing between Intersex and Hijras. Should be an easy keep. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Care to provide a single source that convinced you? So far none of them distinguish between intersex and hijra because that would be WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. All sources say intersex are hijra, including Serena Nanda who has written a small book and written a book called "Neither Man nor Woman - The Hijras of India" about intersex, eunuchs and transsexuals. You can read a few more yourself though. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As Rav V points out, there are sources that discuss intersex issues as distinct from hijra issues (see their comment above). Given that Hijra is an important India centered issue, and intersex is an important global issue, and that there are distinct issues regarding each of them, it makes sense to have two different articles. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But none of them do, that's why I asked you to provide a single source. Just because they discuss about intersex, just like millions of more sources discusses about gays, transgenders, it doesn't means they are distinguishing them with Hijra. And like D4iNa4 has mentioned that these articles were created hardly a few months ago in place of expanding the main LGBT articles, there should be wholesale deletion of them if anything. It makes no sense to have different articles on a subject already covered on rather small articles like LGBT rights in India and Hijra (South Asia). WP:CFORKs are not allowed. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Raymond, all of the sources in question make it clear that intersex individuals may be referred to by the collective term "Hijras", but that all Hijras are definitely not intersex individuals. Intersex individuals, in other words, are a subset among Hijras. Looking even at the sources you provided: "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender", "includes individuals who may be eunuchs, intersex, or transgender" , "Hijra, the collective term for transgender people, eunuchs, and the intersex" , "It is important to acknowledge that transgender/transsexual people and intersex people are not facing the same forms of discrimination" (emphasis mine). If you go on insisting that the terms are equivalent based on a misreading of the sources, expect me to seek a topic-ban for you, as your edits are disruptive. Vanamonde (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is misreading. Raymond has said "intersex are hijra", while you are saying that he said all hijras are intersex? You seem to WP:NOTGETTINGIT.  All reliable sources and official sources treat intersex, eunuchs, and transgenders as hijras. That's an undeniable fact unless you are seeking creation of Transgender rights in India, Eunuchs rights in India. Capitals00 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93, I didn't said that terms are equivalent, I only said that they fall under the branch of Hijra in whole South Asia, and that's what all sources said too, that's why WP:CFORKs should not be made, because main article could be expanded instead. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. From above: "Obviously they are interchangeable and not separate in South Asia. Raymond3023 (talk) 8:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)" (emphasis mine). I will say no more. Vanamonde (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not exactly interchangeable when it comes to only these two terms. Though intersex are referred as Hijra while Hijra can be either intersex or eunuch or transgender in South Asia. It is not like a intersex is not a Hijra, and that's what I meant. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Comparing the article with Hijra (South Asia) and LGBT rights in India (especially the latter), as well as the sources provided by the other "delete" editors, make it clear, IMO, that this article violates WP:CFORK. Since we already have an article that completely overlaps with this one, this article should be deleted. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject is notable and needs to be expanded on, not gotten rid off. Not every person who is intersex in India will identify or be treated as a Hijra. Intersex is manly a subject about medical conditions.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a non-notable subject and because it's a content fork, it has to be eliminated. Intersex are identified as Hijra and receive welfare as third gender in South Asia. Let's analyze the notability:
 * Only 2,125 results in Google, all are mirrors of Wikipedia.
 * Zero results in Google books.
 * Can you compare that with LGBT rights in India? There no evidence of notability for this subject. Lorstaking (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: per D4iNa4 and per Lorstaking . The term used legally and commonly used in India is Hijra particularly in Indian languages including Hindi Language and  term intersex does appear not an  equivalent  in Indian languages or used widely  Hindi term Hijra हिजरा gets 31,90,000 results and   and is indistinguishable in the Indian context.Supreme Court of India in 2014 judgement views them as part of Third gender .  Full judgement National Legal Ser.Auth vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2014 and there is no separate legal classification of intersex ,or cultural clasification or separate rights for them and there rights are only part of Hijra or third Gender.Hence view it as a WP:CONTENTFORK.Do not see any rights unique or specific to Intersex but not to Hijra. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:CFORK. What content in the article is specific to "Intersex rights in India" but not Hijra? Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename to Rights of Hijras in South Asia and move all mention of issues faced by Hijras to this article from the original. I debated with a couple of editors on the article, and I was initially against a redirect. My opinion was that this article should stay as a standalone as there are other article such as LGBT rights in "(country)" and I was of the opinion that as all intersex are not trans or gay, they should have a separate article. However upon further reading into the issue I have come to the conclusion that the word Hijra does equate to "intersex" hen we are reading it in a south asian context. The term is unique to India so its meaning may not be clear to all without soem further reading. The Keep! votes are generally from editors who are fo the view that intersex individuals are not considered to be Hijras. I have to disagree with them. They have said that intersex in India is seprate from Hijra, but reliabel sources such as disagree. Rab V has given the opinion that some sources in the articles are clearly mentioning intersex as an entity. My comment on this is that Hijra is a macro term, an umbrella term, so if a person is intersex, trans or cross dressing, they will be all mentioned as Hijra. However this does not mean that there will be NO SOURCES that mention intersex separately. Existence of such sources is not debated, and we do not argue against that, but thier existence does not mean that intersex people are not Hijra. Any source that states that "intersex" are not called "Hijra" in India can be used to argue against me, but lacking such a source where it is written that "intersex" in India are "NOT" included in "Hijra", your argument does not hold water. Another Keep! vote if from Vanamonde who has made the argument that first of all, intersex is not covered by Hijra and even if they are, a separate article should exist about thier rights. I disagree with the first premise and agree with the second. However if we have an article about rights, it should be rights of all Hijra, so it should be rights of Hijra, instead of rights of intersex. As there is no umbrella term for intersex+trans+crossdressers in any other language, we can have separate articles about rights of trnas and intersex in other countries, but as Hijra is an umbrella term, we should have one article about India. Trankuility has made the argument that as the source says "Hijras, who can be eunuchs, intersex or transgender, have been part of South Asia's culture for thousands of years." then the word "can" equates to Hijra being other than intersex. This argument is flawed, for the Delete! votes never state that 'ALL' Hijra are intersex, rather that all "intersex" are Hijras. So without reliable sources writing that "Hijra" and "intersex" are different, concluding that they "must be different" is WP:OR. Elektricity (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are misreading my argument. I have not, at any point, stated that Intersex individuals are not Hijras. I have stated that Intersex individuals are a subset of Hijras (a fact attested to by the sources) and that therefore the terms are not interchangeable. To put it another way, there are Hijras who are not intersex. Therefore, if there are reliable sources (and there are) discussing "intersex rights" specifically, we cannot simply lump that into "Hijra rights". Vanamonde (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde All groups that are subsets of larger groups are "lumped" in those larger groups. A specific example in this context is homosexuality, both male and female. We do not have Gay Rights and Lesbian rights, rather we have LGBT rights. The same is true here; in India Trans and intersex, along with cross dressing is under Hijra, so just as LGBT pages lump gays and lesbians in one group, even though there are studies (lots of them in fact) that discuss rights of gays and lesbains individually, similarly, we can lump intersex with Hijra. Elektricity (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete--CFork.Clean and clear. Winged Blades Godric 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question Why delete and not merge? This article has content on intersex births and gender verification of athletes that is not in LGBT rights in India or Hijra (South Asia). What is the advantage of getting rid of that well-sourced content entirely, rather than merging it into one of the broader topic articles?--Trystan (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because Eunuchs rights in India, Transgender rights in India, Lesbian rights in India, Bisexual rights in India, Queer rights in India and more are redlinks, that's why Intersex rights in India also deserves to be a redlink per WP:NPOV :)
 * Anyway, it is also believed that redirects/merges sometimes leads people to create POVFORKs that's why they shouldn't be created without a strong reason which is lacking here. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The latter four of those links would all be valid and helpful redirects to LGBT rights in India.
 * So far you are the only editor that has made the accusation that this was a bad-faith WP:POVFORK rather than a WP:CFORK. Given that LGBT rights in India did not include intersex individuals in its scope when this article was created, and this article was created as part of a series, I don't think there is any evidence of bad faith. If it is a CFORK, the appropriate remedy is to merge, per WP:CFORK.--Trystan (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.