Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass 2020 question 1 text

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 deleted as G12. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass 2020 question 1 text[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)

Not an encyclopedia article, it's just the text of a bill, which is linked externally from the main article's page. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an article. There is an article, Massachusetts Right to Repair Initiative (2020),, on the subject; that's plenty. This would probably qualify to be placed on Wikisource, but I'm not convinced it's worthwhile; not every PD EL needs to be added to Wikisource. TJRC (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy and paste of a bill. Might be good on another project, like Wikisource, but not here, as there is already an article for that. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the text of the bill is protected by copyright. This is excessive non-free content, and not suitable for inclusion here or in Wikisource either.— Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: CSD tagged for copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by NonsensicalSystem (talk • contribs) 14:27, October 9, 2020 (UTS) (UTC)

As a proposed edict of government, this text is not subject to copyright. I agree (above) with its deletion, but copyright was not an issue. More at edict of government and Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. TJRC (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (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.