Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT rights by Canadian province

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 merge to LGBT rights in Canada. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 00:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights by Canadian province

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary content forks of LGBT rights in Canada. As nearly all meaningful aspects of LGBT rights in Canada are governed by uniform federal law rather than provincial or territorial laws, there are no significant variations in LGBT rights from one Canadian province or territory to another — meaning that almost the entire content of every one of these articles is pure boilerplate text with no substantive variation present, or even really possible, from one article to another. And the one place where there is an actual province-by-province distinction, the matter of the varying provincial-court precedents which left same-sex marriage in different states of legal recognition between 2003 and 2005, is already covered in much more detail by the articles in Category:Same-sex marriage in Canada by province or territory — so even the one part where there is actually something province-specific to say is just duplicating other articles that already exist. And for added bonus, all of the sourcing here, right across the board in all of the articles, is exclusively to government-published primary sources with the exception of one single news article.
The nationwide overview, and the existing articles about SSM by province, are fully adequate to cover this topic — we do not need a separate "LGBT rights in..." spinout for each individual Canadian province and territory in addition to the articles that already exist. This makes some sense in the US context, where there were some massive differences from state to state before Lawrence and Obergefell equalized everything — but in Canada it's nearly all boilerplate "the same stuff happened the same way everywhere because the feds were in control of it", and existing articles already cover off the few things that ever actually varied by province. So there's just no real need for these as standalone topics in their own right, separately from the nationwide overview. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - As per Bearcat, considering the minimal change from province to province, and the dominance of federal law, there really isn't much point in having separate articles, with slight variations on the same thing. In fact, this makes the topic difficult to read about, and could be much better served in one article or a table inside LGBT rights in Canada. Consider the example of LGBT rights in the United Kingdom, specifically LGBT rights in the United Kingdom#Summary by legal jurisdiction and territory - the four individual nations have slight variations on national law, and e.g. LGBT rights in England redirects to the main article Olly^{say hi} 10:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - unnecessary forks, as noted above. PK T(alk) 16:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat is certainly my go-to expert in this area and right now there doesn't look like much differentiation. But provinces -- especially Quebec -- have their own bills of rights and Quebec has legislated in this area, as outlined in fr:LGBT au Québec#Droit. These articles were just created yesterday. So I guess my question is to @Fuerwissenschaft: does he plan to expand them? Quebec, for one, could merit its own article, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding and rewording the articles is my plan, but I can see why these articles would be unnecessary. I won't object to their deletion if you guys really want them gone. Fuerwissenschaft (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fuerwissenscaft: What is your take on the nomination rationale? I.e. do you know of major differences between the provinces that aren't already listed that could themselves justify stand-alone articles? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There really aren't any major differences between provinces and the reasons for considering the articles for deletion are fair. I guess I agree that it would be best to delete the articles. Fuerwissenschaft (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per article creator's comments. Could even be speedied, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as suggested above. No need to delete the history. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - The Canadian experience with LGBT rights is much more national than other places (including our dear neighbours to the south). As such, it makes sense to have a single article for the country, which can still deal with case-by-case examples as necessary (such as the relatively-unique experiences in Alberta or Quebec). Ajraddatz (Talk) 08:55, 21 February 2016 (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.