Homophobia in ethnic minority communities : If we keep this article, it definitely needs to be renamed or split off into two on the US and UK (and deleting the current title).  Thoughts?  GnocchiFan ( talk ) 19:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Ethnic groups ,  and Sexuality and gender .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or WP:TNT or rename , the entire premise of the article is problematic, for the reasons outlines by @ GnocchiFan CT55555 ( talk ) 20:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United States and United Kingdom , then.  The topic in those two countries is well-researched.  Homophobia in countries where homophobia is government policy might be covered better in a separate article or series of articles.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does the research focus on that topic (the homophobia within ethnic minorities in the UK and US" collectively?) CT55555 ( talk ) 02:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename - The claim that the article is inherently NPOV is problematic; it implies either that the concept of homophobia is itself impossible to discuss without a POV, or that it becomes impossible within the context of minority populations. Neither is true. There are unique drivers (and lots of unique RSs) within all sorts of minority communities. As for the US/UK centric, deleting an article for that reason will leave us with a very small encyclopaedia. This should be a fork from Homophobia that deals with Homophobia in Minority Communities as a whole. The Homophobia article is already too long, and there is enough distinction in RS for a valid fork if we remove the 'ethnic' limiter. 'Ethnic' is, itself, a problematic term as well. Removing 'ethnic' might expand the editor pool to communities where 'ethic' might be problematic: Are Dalits ethnics? How about the Afd and III Path or anyone else on the Radical Right in any country? Widening the scope might widen the editor pool. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This seems to be a textbook case of either WP:DINC or WP:DIC : Why not include examples from latin american countries? Iterresise ( talk ) 22:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Split : Not sure if this one can be saved via WP:TNT , because the term "ethnic minority" completely depends on the subject countries. This article generally only covers two countries where the ethnicities discussed are minorities, therefore I find it more appropriate to split the article into Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom and Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United States to at least have some sense of WP:NPOV . Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Incorrect. The title is neutral. The problem is the lack of examples outside of the United States and the United Kingdom. "ethnic minority communities" is correct. On the other hand, we wouldn't say "deaf minority communities" even though the deaf community is a minority. Iterresise ( talk ) 16:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hence my suggestion to remove the 'ethnic' adjective entirely. If this were simply renamed Homophobia in Minority Communities , it would broaden the base of editors who might contribute, including communities like those with hearing or visually impairment, various stripes of social separatists, castes and classes, etc., none of which are clear-cut ethnicities. Regardless, this is not a ripe article for deletion; it is an opportunity to improve our encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So this would include sexual minorities including bisexuals and homosexuals who are homophobic since they are minorities and some of them form their own communities. I guess that would make sense since some homosexuals are confused before them come out.... What is the point of changing the title and thus/therefore the scope of the article when the research is about ethnicity and race? Iterresise ( talk ) 17:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there are RS on self-fear amongst homosexuals of homosexuals, I think it would be a good addition to a wider, more robust, more sustainable article. The point of changing the title and thus/therefore the scope of the article when the research is about ethnicity and race would be to expand the scope of the article and thus improve the pool of sources (and especially editors) whose contributions would improve Wikipedia. It is possible that the sources are about ethnicity and US/UK-centric because the intersectionality of race and seuxality are at the centre of the culture war in both countries. Perhaps widening the scope would open the door to diverse RSs (and editors) focused on homophobia by socioeconomic segment, caste, class, disability, etc. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It might, but the scope is about "Homophobia in ethnic minority communities" [own emphasis].  This phenomenon is found in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, etc.  .  Homophobia in the disability community is uncommon and probably nonexistent.  They face work discrimination and that is their primary concern.  Iterresise ( talk ) 21:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I understand the current scope of the article.  I think the scope definition is a key part of the problem here, and the reason that this is even under consideration for AfD.  I proposed renaming it to expand that scope.  Yes, getting more input from other parts of the Anglosphere would be great (and, yes, I know what et cetera means), but I don't think adding to the 'width' of worldview is enough to make this a viable, valuable article without added depth.  It's too shallow and too easy to fall into the US/UK culture war churn.  FYI: Your assertion that Homophobia in the disability community is uncommon and probably nonexistent is profoundly misguided as I can tell you from personal experience even though I haven't searched for RS on that.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 00:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any RSs to support your assertion?  Iterresise ( talk ) 14:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  This article is either irredeemable or the start of a worthwhile, expanded article.  More opinions would help.  Also, a discussion about a possible rename can occur if this article is Kept, it's important not to think it has to happen simultaneously with this deletion discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename Elttaruuu ( talk ) 14:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, split or rename This is not a case where deletion improves anything.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:47, 17 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus