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.
While the article is well written, I don't see any sourcing that ties the article together; the article seems to mostly be a grab bag of incidents that use the phrase, because there doesn't seem to be much SIGCOV about the phrase itself. Open to a merge/redirect, but not sure where it should point. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the page should be deleted, theres important information on the page which shouldn't be tossed aside.
Everything on this page matters, let's not delete something so important. SpiderGwen Kizna (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and I guess disclaimer as article's creator). Believe the phrase passes GNG. Coverage of the phrase intrinsically focuses on the contexts it is being used in (whether for activism or in media). I looked through the Slogans category and some slogans there also seem to follow the "grab bag" format (like Live, Laugh, Love or Seek truth from facts, or even Shit happens). I think this is probably fine for all of them honestly but idk maybe the goal is to get to a structure seen on something like Eat the rich or Hands up, don't shoot; those two articles have Origin and Criticism sections that I think flesh it out a bit. I think that is doable, so I don't think deletion or redirecting are good moves here.
also comment I do figure the tying together in the page is the usage of the phrase done in a pro-trans rights sentiment. There are some sources that I still need to incorporate into the article found in the Refideas template on the talk page. I also found these I'll need to sift through: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I'm not saying all of those are suitable or appropriate for inclusion, I just have to literally go through them to see since I just found them off an additional search of the phrase rn. Uses of the phrase in activism is a "tying together" thing imo, but it's also used in merchandising (Human Rights Campaign has merch with the phrase fwiw, though I don't think I'd be able to source that since it'd be from that organization's own website). Soulbust (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulbust: "Live, Laugh, Love" does make an effort to talk about the phrase's history, its attribution, and its temporal home. The current coverage of "Protect trans kids", on the other hand, doesn't seem to be able to pin down anything about the phrase as a phrase. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Perhaps more importantly, inclusion of the article on the social media phenomenon does not seem to be SYNTH on Wikipedia's part. Beyond the sources Soulbust is working through, here's a book that directly covers the phenomenon [1]. There are other, shorter references to it in academic journals you can find on Google Scholar as well. —siroχo10:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That book falls afoul of the use–mention distinction: it doesn't actually tell you anything about the phrase as a phrase other than that it was used in activism on behalf of transgender children (which is what this whole article was, and it is just kind of self-evident from the title). It does tell you about the activism on behalf of transgender children that this hashtag represents, but that's fundamentally a different article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, consider the "subject" of the article to be Trans rights and the slogans "Protect trans kids" and #ProtectTransKids, and then consider MOS:AT as a valid reason for not titling the article as such, and choosing a more natural, sufficiently precise, concise title instead.
This subject is in line with our policies and guidelines. We don't need the entirety of the conclusions our articles make to come from one single source as long we don't make unverifiable conclusions. Given that the phrasing would meet WP:GNG, the crux is ensuring we're not performing OR/SYNTH. We do have multiple sources of verification that this phrase exists as something more than a disparate collection of individual unrelated utterances. This means, we can write an article about it. We can use information from a variety of sources to provide coverage of individual instances including activism tied to the phrase, the meaning of the phrase, etc, as long as we don't derive unverifiable conclusions from them and give DUE weight Perhaps further attribution of secondary source authors and publications would help reduce the risk of SYNTH, I can take a pass on the article for that at some point, but it's certainly possible to include this article in Wikipedia given our guidelines and policies.
Delete or redirect. Although this phrase appears in sources, and has been used as a tagline for trans advocates, e.g. [2], I'm not seeing much dedicated coverage in sources concentrating on the phrase itself. That suggests to me it's not an established encyclopedic phrase meeting GNG in its own right, but rather an English phrase that is used in other contexts. — Amakuru (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the phrase is being used as a rallying call for trans advocacy/activism, then of course the coverage of the phrase will end up also getting into the actual activism (and becoming mostly about that, since it's the tangible, real-world impact of the phrase) like in this source. With that source, this one, and this one, it shows a pattern that this particular phrase is being singled out/used over and over by both activists and public figures and thus shows that this particular phrase has a considerably more notable and meaningful presence in the related activism/advocacy. So bc of that, imo this article has place on Wikipedia as a stand-alone, and straight up deletion would be rather counter to the spirit of the whole goal of this project. I'll continue to work on this article in the meantime. Soulbust (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - How did this even get nommed? For a month-old article, it's well written and superbly sourced, with RS cites in five of the last seven years. It was promoted for DYK! It is precisely the type of article that strengthens and broadens the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly consider retitling and expanding scope. There is definitely a decent amount of coverage of the specific phrase "Protect Trans Kids", especially in respect to the Twitter hashtag "#ProtectTransKids" ([3], [4]), but also in both positive and negative political response to the movement ([5], [6]). That said, I agree with the nominator that it's not entirely clear from coverage that this phrase is unique from other similar slogans like "Trans kids deserve..." ([7]), "Support LGBTQ+ youth" ([8]), etc. I wonder if it would be appropriate to direct similar slogans to this article and title it something like "Transgender youth slogans" (ok, that's a bad title, someone smarter than me can write a better one) or even leave it at the existing title as a common name but make it clear the article encompasses similar slogans focused on trans youth. I'm curious what Soulbust thinks of that idea in particular; I'm not sure if it makes sense, but I think I get the intent of this nom. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate the intent to bring up a possible middle ground here. Though I'll be honest, I think the "Protect trans kids" slogan is much more prevalent (particularly in sourcing I've come across) and notable than the other two mentioned, so I don't really think I'd be all for a retitling. I also think an expanded scope (or what I'm thinking that expanded scope would entail) would probably work well over on the Transgender youth and Healthcare and the LGBT community articles.
That being said, I have no problem referencing these related/similar slogans (I already did include a mention of similar "Protect trans [x]" slogans in the "Use in activism" section). Maybe a "similar phrases" section can be made to include that "Trans kids deserve..." one, though I think the "Support LGBTQ+ youth" would make it beyond the tight scope of being specifically trans-related, which I think is an important thing to get across in this article (as the "Protect trans kids" slogan came into popular usage in response to government revocations of protections for trans youth). I would say, especially with the sourcing I added recently, that the "Protect trans kids" slogans is quite unique and distinct from the other related slogans, especially or at least in terms of the volume of its usage and specific referencing by both those who agree with its sentiment of supporting trans kids and those who have a more negative sociopolitical response to the trans rights movement. Soulbust (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well reasoned. I'm sticking with strong keep, and love the idea of keeping the current title and adding a 'Similar Phrases' section. It would add depth to the article and avoid hashing out NN on each phrase that is added to lexicon over time. Great idea. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulbust That meshes with my thoughts here; I think a similar phrase section would work and even just an expansion of the Related phrases... sentence/paragraph is probably sufficient. A glance at Google Trends bears out your claim that "Protect Trans Kids" is more prevalent than semantically similar phrases like "Protect Trans Youth" ([9]), so I agree it makes sense as the article title.
FYI @Last1in your keep rationale is not based in policy; you might want to expand it with your thoughts on the independent notability of this phrase instead of criticizing the nomination, which strikes me as reasonable (even though I disagree with it). Also IMHO "strong" keep and delete aren't particularly useful phrases for closers, but that's just a personal preference. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)00:37, 12 August 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.