Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Labelle


 * 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 speedy keep. Invalid rationale for deletion. Furthermore, assertions that an individual is not notable without some explanation is disruptive. I JethroBT drop me a line 18:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sophie Labelle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page and subject matter have been established by pediatric psychologists as "child abuse" and keeping this page around only gives a portal for those enabling this abusive practice of transgendering children who have no authority nor autonomy of their own. Also, this page is not notable or important to any facet of Wikipedia's goals or mission statement DalSheron (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Rationale does not provide a legitimate reason for deletion under policy. Note also that there is currently a 4chan/pol/ campaign of harassment against the subject of the article, making this a possible bad faith nomination. Yunshui 雲 水 15:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it does, it has to be notable, and of sound judgement, advocating a certifiable act of child abuse is neither notable nor of sound judgement. There is no obectivity tobe found here. DalSheron (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad-faith nomination. The subject does not support child abuse. Supporting trans children is not considered child abuse by the present-day medical establishment. This page has been continually subjected to attack campaigns from trans-antagonistic people, and this is just more of the same. Funcrunch (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG and I can confirm that I've heard about the harassment campaign mentioned by in my own social media circles. In addition, what  has said is true: supporting trans children provides a better outlook on their overall happiness & mental health and reduces suicide and homelessness for the transgendered population. . I have no idea where  has found information that supporting trans kids is "abuse," but that claim is patently false and WP:FRINGE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page is a biography of a living person. The subject's personal views should not influence the relevance of the page itself, as long as the information about the subject conforms to standards. 62.64.208.155 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 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.