Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill 165

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 delete. Sandstein 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill 165

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

This bill fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every piece of legislation that exists in every jurisdiction that passes legislation is not automatically a suitable article topic; reliable sourcing must be present to show that the topic is noteworthy. Creator also needs to be aware that pieces of legislation are titled with their short form name, not their bill number — every single state or province in North America will have its own completely different "Bill 165" within the life of its current legislature, another completely different "Bill 165" several years ago during the life of its previous legislature, and then another completely different "Bill 165" a few years into the future after the next election resets the bill numbering again. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoffreyT2000: You say that this article fails wp:gng which I believe is code for not enough wp:Reliable sources? If so I wonder if you tried to find such sources before nominating this article for deletion. The following is a partial list of articles I found by a simple google news search:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-introduce-regulations-for-home-inspections/article31443164/

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/08/17/ontario-to-regulate-home-inspectors.html

https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/04/04/ontario-plans-to-regulate-home-inspectors-this-year.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ontario-home-inspectors-regulations-minister-licence-1.3726419

https://www.reminetwork.com/articles/ontario-proposes-home-inspector-licensing-law/

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/ontario-government-table-home-inspector-licensing-legislation-1004098466/

Is this enough or do I have to provide more? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Have you got a source for the legislation actually passing third reading and being signed into law? Have you got a source for what makes this proposal significantly different from the way other provinces or US states regulate contractors? Have you got a source for, oh, anybody actually reacting to the proposal in any notable way besides "oh, okay"? Because so far, what you're showing us is "this is a thing that exists", not "this is a thing whose existence warrants dedicated coverage in an encyclopedia". Lots of laws and proposed laws exist in lots of places without having Wikipedia articles about them — what's needed for a proposed law to qualify for an article is evidence that it has some greater significance above and beyond the mere fact of existing as a proposed law, not just "a handful of sources verify that it exists". Bearcat (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: RE:Have you got a..etc. etc -- No, have you? How is this relevant to this wp:AfD which is based on wp:GNG? Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

GNG is passed when the sources demonstrate something important and noteworthy about the topic, not when they merely demonstrate that the topic exists. Lots of people, organizations and things technically get enough coverage to pass GNG if "coverage of them exists" were all that sources actually had to demonstrate. We would, for instance, have to keep an article about every restaurant in existence if local coverage demonstrating that the restaurant exists were all it took, and coverage demonstrating a reason why the world needed to care wasn't necessary. We would have to keep articles about teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes if "sources exist" were all it took, and coverage which demonstrated any actual pass of our notability criteria for sportspeople were unnecessary. We would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got media coverage a few years ago for waking up one morning to find a pig in her yard, if "sources exist" were all it took and there were no need to demonstrate that the context she was getting coverage for was encyclopedically noteworthy.

Lots of things can technically be sourced over GNG without actually being an appropriate article topic — what the sources need to demonstrate to fulfill GNG is a reason why the thing is important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, not just that the thing exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on bearcat are you a judge? The plaintiff has right to due diligence. Let this guy prove his case before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree that the merits of the case stand for themselves. Rebekahalnablack

Delete. I'm going with delete for now, without prejudice to it being recreated if the law turns out to be notable. I see that it's newsworthy, but that's a much lower bar. TJRC (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment This page has been moved 3 times since this wp:AfD started. . Ottawahitech (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Keep (as creator) I have not seen any compelling arguments here for this proposed deletion? I have pinged the nomintor with a question almost a week ago, but have received no reply even though the nom was active on Wikipedia nominating a bunch of other pages for deleton during that time. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find Bearcat's argument quite compelling. Allowing this article to stand without any indication of what makes the legislation notable (something beyond the mere fact of its existence) implies that Wikipedia requires articles for all legislation in all jurisdictions, provided there was news coverage at the time. None of the references listed above show any indication of what is notable about this bill. nerdgoonrant (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a proposed private member's bill that was rejected like most private members' bills. Looking at [1], and [2], this article is not about the actual legislation proposed by the Ontario government minister, which is almost certain to pass, but the bill refered to in one sentence ("In April 2016, Liberal MPP Han Dong introduced a private member's bill to license home inspectors, but it never made it past committee. "). If this is kept through WP:GNG, then that would mean that any bill proposed at any top-level subnational legislature even if defeated would be notable. This might mention a line in Han Dong's article, because it is rare that PMB's even get press attention, but it doesn't need its own article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: Yes this article is probably misnamed (suggestions?), but as I have shown above it does not fail wp:GNG as the nom claims, and it is a piece of valuable information (or could be if it is allowed to develop) for those who are currently considering purchasing a home in the province of Ontario where an Offer to Purchase normally contains a condition of passing a Home inspection.

I know most of the people participating here have no interest in real estate or its coverage on Wikipedia, they are more interested in wiki-lawyering deletion criteria. However, if this goes on much longer, the only editors left here will be paid editors who will continue to flood this place with spam. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

No it's not misnamed, and your sources are a good explanation for why this fails the GNG. This article is not about the proposed government legislation which may be notable in the future, it's about a past bill that has never made it out of the committee stage and will never be passed because it's a PMB from a member of the governing party being superseded by future government-backed legislation. It's theoretically possible for a PMB to meet the GNG, but generally such a PMB should at least because actual law, which this bill will never become.

This type of bill is simply not notable, and your sources demonstrate that. The G&M, 1st Torstar article and CBC only mention the bill in a sentence in their pieces, while the 2nd Torstar article and the Reminetwork article don't mention this bill at all. The only source that covers it in anything more than passing detail is the Canadaunderwriter source, but one source isn't good enough to establish notability. The sources could be used in an article titled, say Home inspection in Ontario, or whatever the government legislation/agency created by that legislation will be called. However, such an article shouldn't be created until the bill is passed, or at least tabled. I have already mentioned this PMB in Han Dong's article, because it's rare for PMBs to get this much media coverage at all, and that's really all the coverage this needs on Wikipedia at the moment. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight:, Are you saying that it is premature to have an article titled Home inspection in Ontario because legislation about it is still in the works? This in spite of the fact that an Offer of purchase and sale in Ontario has a standard clause in it requiring it? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me BTW aren't you lucky that no one has reverted your edit at Han Dong (politician) saying it is wp:UNDUE which I am sure would have happened to me if I was the editor. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[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.