Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social exclusion in Canada

:{{la|Social exclusion in Canada}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Social_exclusion_in_Canada Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Social exclusion in Canada}})

I am not yet prepared to accept that a subject such as this warrants a standalone article (any more than "the color blue in Canada" or "Stray dogs in Canada" or "Stray dogs in Canada in 2016" or "Stray dogs in August in Canada, 2016"). This could be converted into a redirect to Social exclusion, but the remaining redirect would be pretty pointless. KDS4444 (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I was surprised to see if we don't have a main article Racism in Canada (which is currently just a redirect to the Canada section of the North American article) despite the fact that we have a fairly well populated category, :Category:Racism in Canada. With nomination statement that likens the topic to "Stray dogs in August in Canada, 2016," it seems to me the nominator is going out of his way to start this off with a needlessly confrontational approach. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to Racism in North America#Canada Delete This reads like a student's essay. The SPA that wrote this should have developed this content elsewhere but because Wikipedia has made "article" the unit of measure we have new editors with bright ideas writing standalone, often orphaned, articles. The content looks useful but I agree that the subject was poorly-thought. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The focus of this well-referenced article appears to be on the history of Canadian laws enacting and enforcing differential treatment of certain immigrant groups or first peoples. Wikipedia has many articles focused on the history of laws by specific country, e.g., History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States. Perhaps moving this to History of laws concerning social exclusion in Canada might be an improvement. Normal editing could follow. An alternative approach could be to merge portions of this article to History of immigration to Canada, History of Canadian nationality law and/or First Nations but my opinion is that the grouping topic of social exclusion is supported by the references. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT. Strictly speaking, social exclusion is not just racism — it also includes stigmatizing people on the basis of religion or sexuality or other "us vs. them" grounds. But the examples cited here do involve racism specifically, this does have some overtones of being an essay rather than a properly written or properly structured encyclopedia article, and I'm not seeing why we would need a standalone article about "social exclusion in Canada" as a merged supertopic, rather than addressing racism in our articles about racism, and homophobia in our articles about homophobia, and religion in our articles about religion — even our main article about social exclusion is just a very general overview of the concept which links to separate articles about the various subtypes, rather than being a comprehensive examination of every possible aspect. I'll agree with Shawn that the nominator misfired with the nomination statement, as this is hardly comparable to "stray dogs" or "the colour blue" — but what it is, is an excessively overbroad megamerger of several topics better addressed on their own in the appropriate more specific contexts. There is some legitimate content here amid the editorializing — but it belongs in other articles rather than at this title. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Possible keep but the content seems to be :Ethnic exclusion in Canada: it has sections on Japanese, Chinese and First Nations, who are ethnic groups, not social ones. This is slightly different from overt racism. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TNT. A motley assortment of historical and contemporary policies and injustices with no justification for regarding them as a unified topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete This qualifies for a WP:TNT. Unless sources actually mention all of them together, we should not string them into an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.