Deletion of Social exclusion in Canada

Comment: This qualifies for a . Unless sources actually mention all of them together, we should not string them into an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per . A motley assortment of historical and contemporary policies and injustices with no justification for regarding them as a unified topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:NOTESSAY)