Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ensuring Integrity Bill

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring Integrity Bill[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of secondary sources. If this proposed legislation hasn't attracted mainstream media attention, just how notable is it? Australian bills don't generally have their own articles. Suggest waiting until this thing becomes law, when it will be a valid piece of legislation along with others. Perhaps a mention in Turnbull Government, if it raises any public interest. --Pete (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG. Just a few sources that are easily found with a Google search: Policy Forum, The Guardian, The Conversation, Sydney Morning Herald, Financial Review, etc. b uidhe 21:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This bill has received extensive media coverage for months. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per buidhe, and a gnews search returns a lot more, even. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there are actually two bills with this name (one in 2017 and one in 2019) (I've fixed the article to explain this). The legislation has been one of the most contentious pieces of legislation in the current and previous Parliaments and have received extensive coverage. Bookscale (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up lots and lots and lots "okay coola, thats enough" (and lots...) of useable sources (including mainstream media:)) that cover this, a bit of WP:BEFORE ie. "Ensuring Integrity legislation" under gnewssearch by the nominator would have uncovered lots and lots "coola, stop it! (and lots...) of articles dissussing it, of course, all is forgiven as i see that the nominator listens to Miles. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No longer relevant, as the bill has been defeated in the Senate. Just another Bill that never became an Act, and we don't seem to have articles on these. Perhaps there's a list of defeated legislation this might go on? --Pete (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This piece of legislation has been around since 2017, don't think it will just go away now. The fact it came out of the Trade Union Royal Commission makes it more notable than most bills. Bookscale (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's your opinion, and thank you for it, but my objection, and the reason I put this article up for deletion, goes to policy. We only have three articles on Australian Bills and the other two are failed referendums for constitutional amendment, both of which were put to the people with publicly-funded YES and NO campaigns and a compulsory vote. This particular article, if we retained it, would be the only article on unsuccessful Australian legislation in Wikipedia, apart from the highly visible and expensive attempts to amend the Constitution. I don't think this bill comes close to that sort of notability and importance.
  - So I ask why should we set a whole new benchmark on Wikipedia? What makes this bill notable when there must be thousands of others having the same status - or higher, being the subject of intense national debate - but we never bothered to make them into Wikipedia articles? --Pete (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTPAPER seems relevant here - we do not face any space constraints, and are guided simply by the notability policies. I'd suggest that we should have a lot more articles on legislation, and especially high profile legislation which failed to make it though parliament. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with this. Bookscale (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pete, perhaps you should read the news (e.g. this article). The bill hasn't finished yet (and it has hung around for 2 years and been one of the most contentious pieces of legislation for a while, so if you think this is some non-notable bill you don't know what you are talking about). Bookscale (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article didn't make the case for notability - and still doesn't - but that's not my point. It's failed legislation and we just don't have many articles on failed legislation. If a Bill gets passed, it becomes an Act, and we have lots of articles on actual legislation. Maybe this thing will come up again, maybe not, but I'm still not convinced we should have an entire article on it. I suggested a list of Bills above. Why not something like that? Possibly something we could link to (say) the First Rudd Government or Fourth Morrison Government. Legislative program hiccups of Prime Ministers. Not that I particularly care about this bill in particular. What attracted my attention was the ratshit sourcing. It's still pretty dismal. --Pete (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't have many articles on failed legislation because most of it isn't notable (hell, a lot of legislation isn't necessarily notable). This bill alone has far more coverage in reliable sources, far more public awareness, and far more controversy than hundreds of actual acts of parliament combined, so even if we apply a high bar to unsuccessful bill articles, it passes very easily. A list of bills would be completely pointless: we'd lose any information about this notable one and wind up with a lot of administratrivia about non-notable bills. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's objectively the most controversial (attempted) industrial relations legislation in Australia since WorkChoices more than a decade ago and the biggest development in issues around union deregistration since before I was born. Just like the nastier half of the 2014 budget, its failure to pass parliament doesn't make it any less notable (five years later, that's still referenced all the time). There's also no sign that it's going to go away anytime soon. It's already notable no matter what happens in the future. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Genuine question; was WP:BEFORE done? One of the most regressive pieces of industrial legislation attempted to be passed by a rich world government since the Second World War which included significant infringements of international standards (ie treaties) to which Australia is party. Drew international attention. Easily meets GNG. FWIW, on civil liberties grounds and its criminalisation of trade unionism, I'd venture that historically this will be held in importance on par with the Communist Party Dissolution Act.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2019 (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.