Talk:LGBT rights in Papua New Guinea

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Papua New Guinea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6IEmVxpKn?url=http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2013.pdf to http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

personal development
what rights do people have 103.14.91.90 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Gender
— Assignment last updated by Zisha68 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Merging Proposal
I would like to propose merging Palopa into LGBT rights in Papua New Guinea.

Reason: Palopa is very short, and most of the information is already included in the "terminology" section of LGBT rights in Papua New Guinea. The sentence or 2 that is not included can easily be added. Rainsage (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I think there is benefit in keeping the pages separate, as description of terminology is not the same as a wider article on LGBT+ rights. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the length of the article is so short, that I don't think the topic is notable enough to warrant a separate page, especially because Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Rainsage (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article could be added to, but I don't think a merge is appropriate MarkiPoli (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * why don't you think it would be appropriate? Rainsage (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They aren't the same topic. This article is about rights, not LGBT people in general in PNG. There's three high quality sources (journals or published books), 1 lower but still adequate quality source (Stuff NZ), and two low quality sources (a glossary and a blog). I don't have access to the books, so I don't know if the mentions are WP:TRIVIAL, but they don't seem to be given the level of detail provided. This discussion is better served in an AfD discussion on Palopa, where merge is a potential outcome anyway. And just because an article is short, if high quality sources like books exist, it is hard to get an article deleted even if the content is not detailed enough. MarkiPoli (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)