Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario)

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. L Faraone 07:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario)[edit]

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

As I don't believe this article meets GNG, as all of its media mentions seem to be "trivial" (i.e., the information was secured under the Freedom of ...), I thought I would bring it here for a discussion. This seems to me like somewhat of a gray area, so I appreciate ensuing counterarguments that may favor it being kept, but discussion seemed necessary. Go Phightins! 05:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly against WP:NOTREPOSITORY # 3: "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of Public domain or other source material such as ... laws ... that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording." -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTREPOSITORY is not now relevant. I have expanded the article so that it now consists of more than just an extract, and the article is capable of being expanded further. James500 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This Act satisfies GNG. There is sufficient coverage in textbooks. James500 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC) This, for one example, is clearly not a trivial mention. James500 (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with analysis by James500, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs content and sourcing improvements, certainly, but it seems pretty clear to me that an FOI/privacy law is a notable article topic in principle. Weak keep, though this should potentially be revisited after a period of time if no serious attempt to beef the article up has actually been made. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be compatible with WP:BEFORE. The sources only have to exist. A simple search of GBooks confirms that they do. (Hint: "Ontario" is not always part of the name, other names such as "FIPPA" and "RSO 1990 c F31" are also used, and there are sometimes problems with character recognition). There is no deadline for incorporating information from those sources into the article. The nominator is in fact required to attempt to do that himself before any nomination. James500 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, or should be, a point at which Wikipedia begins to concern itself not just with the raw volume of article topics, but with the actual quality of the articles themselves. There's no real value in permanently keeping a bad, uninformative and largely unsourced article that nobody's taking any time and initiative to actually work on, just because it remains possible that somebody might get around to improving it eventually — if and when somebody is prepared to finally put some effort into an underperforming article, it is not any more difficult to start a new article from scratch than it is to add improvements to one that already exists, so the fact that somebody could theoretically improve an article isn't a compelling argument if nobody actually is improving the article. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest is not policy, and I would be strongly opposed to it becoming policy, because it would probably kill the encyclopedia. James500 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC) And "quantity has its own quality". James500 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC) And it is more difficult because it involves additional research and typing and can only be done by a registered user. James500 (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 The article does not indicate why it is important in the slightest. There's an article to be made about the subject, but there's no meaningful article there at all. No assertion of notability. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, CSD A7 does not apply to legislation. (The authentic text of a piece of legislation is typically a physical object, namely a document written or printed on a substance such as vellum and held in a secure building. Paper copies are normally issued. And the rights and duties created by a piece of legislation are clearly not any of the things described by CSD A7.) Secondly, saying that X is a piece of legislation (that creates rights and duties) is an assertion of importance in of itself. A court can order a person to obey any piece of legislation by means of an injunction or prerogative order. If he does not do as he is told, he can be committed to prison for contempt of court, possibly for years at a time. And being in danger of being sent to prison is rather significant. And that is before you consider the rights of access to information that the thing actually creates and the limitations it places on them, which are obviously going to be of enormous practical importance. And freedom of information and privacy are matters of enormous public concern. And this is the statute dealing with those matters in Ontario. All of this is a bit academic since the Act clearly satisfies GNG and that really is the bottom line. James500 (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Freedom of information in Canada. It's explained 'in context' with other similar provincial laws there. At least until such time as a real article can replace this 'sub-stub'. I personally would bundle Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in with this AFD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we want to delete it first? That is not how articles are merged unless their content is unnacceptable (e.g. copyvio and libel and OR and things that violate NOT and the like).
- I would hesitate to describe the extremely brief material in Freedom of information in Canada as an explanation.
- I must say that I think there is no point in merging this to split it off again, which is what will eventually happen. James500 (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said anything about a merge. A abridged regurgitation of what the law is, is not what the wiki is supposed to be, as the actual source can show that in MUCH better detail. Who says it will ever get rewritten so that it gets "split off again" ? Creating a redirect now would seem like a good way to direct an editor intrested in the subject to where others are working on the same subject, without causing duplication. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is content in this article that isn't in the proposed merger target. "RSO 1990 c F31" is a reference to a collection of revised statutes and is presumably an acceptable form of citation. For some reason it has been omitted from the proposed merger target. And the proposed merger target does not, unlike this article, condescend to explain, where it does use it, what the abbreviation "RSO" means either.
    - Your answer does not explain why you want to delete this article first, bearing in mind that will consume greater system resources than just redirecting it and will waste a sysop's time.
    - If it is possible to write a decent article on something, someone will do it sooner or later (provided they are not pestered with impatient Afd nominations). It is as inevitable as death and taxes. "There's no end to the writing of books". James500 (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Insisting on having a more or less complete article from the outset would defeat the whole point of having a wiki. The reason that Wikipedia articles are built in lots of small steps is because it has been found to be quicker and more efficient. James500 (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1/"content in this article that isn't in the proposed merger target" so correct the link that is in the target (its just an older version of what you have shown)
      - 2/delete this article first because it is "A abridged regurgitation of what the law is" nothing more, no prose, no citations, no comparable laws, nothing. (aka WP:NOTREPOSITORY re:Public domain or other source material)
      - 3/someone will do it sooner or later... so let it be spun out of the parent article at a time when it is consensus of the maintainers of the parent Article. No need to start by creating duplication with 2 sets of Editors watching 2 different sets of Articles that are about the same thing.
      - 4/"Insisting on having a more or less complete article from the outset would defeat the whole point of having a wiki." ...what? This is not even a Stub yet (that still deserves its {{dead end}} tag). That's why it is common to spin out articles. When they become unwieldy housed in the parent, they get spun out with proper linking back to the parent, and a précis in the parent. There is nothing here TO précis because it is "A abridged regurgitation of what the law is". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"so correct the link that is in the target (its just an older version of what you have shown)" - I am afraid that I don't follow. There is more than a link missing.
"no prose" - The first sentence is prose.
NOTREPOSITORY - The first sentence is not copied from anything.
"no citations" - "RSO 1990 c F31" is a citation. It means chapter F31 of the 1990 edition of a book called The Revised Statutes of Ontario.
"no comparable laws" - Are they necessary? I would be more interested in finding amendments, subordinate legislation and case law. Things that are normally more important.
"nothing" - The article is clearly not empty.
"not even a Stub yet" - This article has been assessed as a stub by an enormously experienced editor. I have no doubt that assessment is correct.
"that still deserves its dead end tag" -That template is only for articles that have no internal links. This one does. James500 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. This Act is the codification of freedom of information law for the public sector in Ontario - internationally recognized as a fundamental human right - to say it is not notable is frankly nonsense. The article is not well formed at all but that is not a valid reason for deletion. There are bound to be numerous sources available to improve this article, although I suspect many will be offline sources. I'm going to go see what I can do with it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has been expanded. James500 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Landmark provincial-level legislation — in Canada's most populous province, to boot. Sources showing. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2013 (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.