Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations

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 keep. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations

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

I believe the article topic is not on its own a meaningful subject, as LGBT rights in Commonwealth countries are country-specific, it being an affiliated group of nations rather than a geographical or administrative grouping. It's consigned to be an original synthesis at worst or a list of information covered in the individual nations' articles at best; in neither case is there likely to be RS specifically for the article topic itself. In short, I'm AfDing this because it can only be a non-notable and synthesis-prone regrouping of notable information. Tristessa (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristessa - the reason I started this article was to reflect the current emerging debate within the UK about how far to engage across the Commonwealth on LGBT rights. There have been several news articles examining this. I accept that the article needs more work to set out a narrative around the development of anti-sodomy laws and British influence through colonialism, and I will work on this - but nevertheless I feel it is a useful grouping as history and issues across Commonwealth states are actually quite closely aligned; and it's not simply a case of bagging together a group of unrelated states. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick look round for sources finds that there is material discussing the spectrum of LGBT rights in the Commonwealth, or more specifically about the lack of rights for LGBTs in some parts of the Commonwealth and the reaction of those in other parts. It ought to be prose, however - the list should be a minor part of it (and also be linked properly to the "LGBT rights in..." articles). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the level of LGBT rights (or rather lack thereof) of those individual countries is a matter entirely separate to the Commonwealth itself; there may well be a spectrum of rights, but that's because the issue is not part of Commonwealth political business at all. We wouldn't have an article on "LGBT rights in Stockholm Convention member states", because the countries' LGBT rights have nothing to do with the alliance about persistent organic pollutants; the two are a non-sequitur. --Tristessa (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our business to decide that people in, say, the UK and Australia shouldn't care about LGBT rights in other Commonwealth countries because LGBT rights and the fact of being in the Commonwealth are unrelated. They do, and they've received reliable coverage for it. Is the same true of Stockholm Convention states? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Roscelese. In which case this reliable coverage, as well as some narrative to state its notability, ought to be included in the article. --Tristessa (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled - is this intended to be a withdrawal of the deletion nomination? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant I agree with your line of reasoning, and that the sources should be added to the article if they exist -- it's impossible to guess at the quality of (future) sources not added to the article, if you see what I mean. (But I see you've listed some below, which seem to be newspaper/magazine references; I haven't looked at them yet). --Tristessa (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand what you mean - of course the sources would have to be added, and some prose written. It's just that surmountable problems - like absence of sources from an article when the topic is shown to be notable and the sources exist - aren't a reason for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I'm not convinced by the sources below that it is surmountable, to be honest; it still does strike me as a shade tenuous. --Tristessa (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. When I was looking for sources, I was initially thinking of recommending that we delete this article and use the sources to expand The Kaleidoscope Trust, but really the sources are about rights in the Commonwealth, not about the organization, though it comes up sometimes in these pieces. Some of these developments seem to be recent, as well, so we may see more pop up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are a few sources Activists Fight Homophobia in Britannia's Old Empire Elizabeth the only queen allowed in many Commonwealth nations Commonwealth chief against homophobia CHOGM push for LGBT rights –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Roscelese; Looks like this exact topic has been covered in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify and start over Needs a complete rewrite. I suggest a table, which lists (for each country) which acts are and are not legal and the year in which the status changed. With a reference for each. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have articles covering this. It is redundant. Already covered by articles like: LGBT rights by country or territory --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGBT rights by country or territory. Some useful and neutral information that could add content and context to that article. Dzlife (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - already covered elsewhere. --John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no article dedicated to LGBT issues across the British Commonwealth. There are important synergies between these nations and there is growing action (covered by the media) about addressing LGBT rights at the Commonwealth Heads of State grouping. The article creates transparency which would not be had by splitting this information aross existing articles. You would have to know which states in africa, asia etc were Commonwealth members before you could begin any comparison. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article title is misleading. "LGBT rights" does not stop at whether homosexuality itself is illegal. (see: marriage, legal gender-status of transgendered individuals, adoption rights, etc. etc. etc. etc.) Properly, this should be titled List of Commonwealth countries in which homosexuality is illegal (a trivial intersection, IMHO).
Article contains two lists - legal and illegal (superfluous, no?)
This article is unnecessary considering List of LGBT rights articles by region provides links to far more in-depth articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the point is it's not a list. I agree it would be rather pointless if it was just a list. It's intended to be an article setting out issues in common across the commonwealth and to capture any discussion at the commonwealth level. But I don't see the point of me working to improve the article to reflect this if everyone is going to simply vote to delete it; so I might as well not bother for the timebeing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could request the article be userfied for you and continue to shape it outside of mainspace. But in any case, I'm not judging the article by what it could possibly be if somebody rewrote it entirely. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful advice - I shall consider that. But aren't we discussing here the validity of whether there should actually be an article called "LGBT rights in the Commonwealth" (and the value of that) rather than judging whether that article should exist by nature of how it is currently writen? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial recent improvements to the article. I would urge everyone to take another look and see if the current version meets general concerns. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and politically relevant given current events. Ross Fraser (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this news article help with the decision on whether we keep the article? http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/10/19/australian-foreign-minister-to-call-on-commonwealth-to-repeal-anti-gay-laws/

Now that the Commonwealth Secretary General made a historic inclusion on LGBT rights in his speech yesterday can we agree that this article should no longer b reviewed as an article for deletion? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this now? I would have hoped that the person that raised concerns in the first place, would have maintained an interest throughout. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15488237 Contaldo80 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - LGBT rights have dominated many proceedings at CHOGMs, and there's significant media coverage of the Commonwealth's efforts to legalise homosexuality and reduce homophobia in the Commonwealth's African and Caribbean members. And, yes, because the coverage of the topic in reliable sources is dominated by legalising homosexuality itself, the focus of the article should be on that. Bastin 11:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I found this article because I was specifically interested in the legal situation within the Commonwealth of Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandect (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This was listed properly for 2 weeks, then on Oct 17 it was removed from the log to relist a 2nd time, but never properly relisted. I have now added it to the current day's deletion log. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea what the article used to look like, and I agree that maybe the lists should just go completely because they're not very helpful or unique in any way, but I think that currently the article at least demonstrates that (1) its topic is not a trivial intersection, as there is political interest in the issue of gay rights in the Commonwealth and Commonwealth countries do contain important links, both historically and to the present day; and (2) it's capable of being expanded to include more reliable sources in the future. Plus, I personally think that it's interesting and WP could use more articles about LGBT subjects. AgnosticAphid talk 03:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good coverage from reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2011 (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.