Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993

[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)

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

The act isn't notable, can't find sources that discuss the act itself. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It regulates a $3.5 trillion industry of Superannuation in Australia, and here are at least 1300 results on Google Scholar discussing the Act: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Superannuation+Industry+%28Supervision%29+Act+1993%22&btnG=

Hope that is useful for you, BarrySpinno (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. This Act has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, the Internet Archive, JSTOR, HeinOnline, the collection of journals included in AustLII, the collection of journals included in NZLII, and elsewhere. This is the Act that controls superannuation in Australia, so any book or article on superannuation discusses this Act. The Act is sometimes called the SIS Act. James500 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are sources that discuss the Act, but all of the ones I've looked at are purely descriptive (and thus not "significant" in their coverage) or briefly mention or cite the Act. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Keep per sources provided by James500. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) GNG does not say anything about sources being "purely descriptive". (2) The sources are not "purely descriptive". This, to pick a random example, could not be described as "purely descriptive" within any meaning those words could have. James500 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't view the source that you've linked to. It would be helpful if you could provide three sources establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You should be able to access that source. Could there be something wrong with your computer? If you are unable to access a source, the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS applies. It says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) WP:THREE is a userspace essay. The reason it is in the userspace is because the policy WP:GUIDES says "Essays . . . that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace". The guideline WP:GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required". There has never been a requirement or expectation that there be more than two sources satisfying GNG, and there has never been a prohibition on four or more sources. WP:BEFORE is not satisfied by refusing to read more than three sources. (3) There are entire periodical articles that are entirely about this Act: [1]. There are well over 130 journal articles with coverage of this Act in AustLII. Some of those appear to be at least almost entirely about this Act: [2] [3]. Others are certainly largely about this Act. I could go on, but the Act obviously satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. James500 (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I wasn't suggesting the source should be rejected because I couldn't read it.

(2) I'm aware THREE is a userspace essay. The reason its in the userspace is because Roy wants to control it, not because people disagree with it. The point of the essay is that three sources is usually a good number to show that something is notable. Nobody is suggesting that "WP:BEFORE is not satisfied by refusing to read more than three sources."

(3) Thank you. All you had to do was link to some sources instead of implying that I was rejecting the book you linked to and that I don't know what a userspace essay is. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Superannuation in Australia -- There is no independent notability for the act beyond the parent article. As this article currently exists, there is no sourcing, so there is nothing to merge. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) WP:GNG and WP:SPINOUT say nothing about "independent notability". Both the guideline and the policy say that we are allowed to have an article on a subtopic even if its entire content is within the scope of the parent topic. (2) Superannuation in Australia is a massive topic, with an enormous amount of coverage, and we are never going to be able to fit that topic into a single article without violating either WP:TOOBIG or WP:PRESERVE. (3) In any event, the coverage of the Act is "independent" of the parent in the sense that it is not merely about superannuation in Australia generally, but is specifically about the Act in particular, to the exclusion of other aspects of the topic of superannuation in Australia. Further, the coverage contains information about the Act that is not obviously relevant to the parent topic. (4) The sources address the Act directly and in detail. (5) The article is not unreferenced. The Act is a reliable primary source for its own content. (6) The Act is not the same thing as superannuation in Australia. Firstly, this Act was passed in 1993. Superannuation existed in Australia long before 1993. The entire pre-1993 history of superannuation is outside the scope of this article. Further, even today there are many aspects of superannuation that arguably have nothing to do with the Act. Superannuation is not a purely legal phenomenon. It is also an economic, business and social phenomenon etc, and these aspects often have nothing to do with the Act. What do the "List of superannuation entities by funds under management" in the parent article, or the economic and financial statistics available for superannuation, have to do with the Act? (7) Even from a purely legal perspective, this Act is not the whole law of superannuation. There are many other Australian Acts on superannuation. I count, in particular, more than thirty Commonwealth Acts presently in force that have the word "superannuation" in their short title, from the Superannuation Act 1922 to the Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Act 2012. That number does not include sub-federal legislation or completely repealed legislation. It is true that these Acts are presently (but not necessarily historically before 1993) less important than the SIS Act, but they are still part of the law of superannuation. Further, there is a huge amount of case law that is not strictly part of the SIS Act either. James500 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @James500 and BarrySpinno: Do you see yourselves expanding this article in the near-future to cover (well-cited) in-depth/technical aspects of the Act that are not currently and cannot easily be included in Superannuation in Australia#Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS) and elsewhere in that article (and possibly the addition of an External Links section)? While significant RS coverage of the Act exists in the context of the topic, WP:NOPAGE currently applies (with the possibility of later WP:SPINOUT when needed), so that would land me at Redirect otherwise. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) In answer to your question, I see myself expanding this article to cover aspects of the Act that are not currently and cannot easily be included in Superannuation in Australia. However, there is WP:NODEADLINE, and WP:IMPATIENT is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (2) WP:NOPAGE says "On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". That is clearly the case here. James500 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it would be better expanded, hence my question. In the absence of that, it's better redirected currently given the coverage at the proposed section and elsewhere in the page. It can then be spun out at the appropriate juncture, in due course, in the fullness of time... To quote WP:NODEADLINE: "When the article is a very badly-written article on a small aspect of a bigger field... redirecting some of the articles after merging any useful content to a more general article, are better choices than deleting. // Merge is a perfectly acceptable vote in a deletion discussion". In this case there's not much to merge. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the article could be called "very badly-written". What the passage from WP:IMPATIENT (which you misattribute to WP:NODEADLINE) actually says is "removing unverifiable content and stubbing the article . . . are better choices than deleting" and "they are excellent arguments for a merge in cases where an excessive number of subarticles exists" (my emphasis). I am unable to detect unverifiable content in this article, or an excessive number of subarticles. The article should not be merged merely because it is presently a stub, as WP:IMPATIENT actually advocates stubbing. Superannuation in Australia is missing even the most basic information about this Act, and what information it does contain is scattered through the article in a way that makes it difficult to find. James500 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between those arguing to Keep and those preferring to Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, I'd expand the article in future. There's loads in it. This discussion is slightly bizarre. This is an Act of Parliament in Australia. That is, the actual Parliament, which makes laws like this one. The Act regulates a $3.5 trillion industry. It's notable as well as the superannuation in Australia page. It should have been created years ago.. BarrySpinno (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that merely being an act of parliament confers notability. For example, I doubt that an act containing mere technical amendments to a wide range of already existing acts, without making any substantive changes to existing law, would be considered notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that anyone is saying that all Acts of Parliament are inherently notable. I have said that this particular Act is notable because it satisfies the guideline WP:GNG. Topics that satisfy GNG do so because, and only because, of the coverage they have received. WP:N says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below" (my emphasis). While this particular Act is famous and important, I am not saying that fame and importance make it (or any other Act) inherently notable (though fame and importance certainly do enhance its acceptability, per the rubric of WP:N). I am saying that this particular Act has received coverage that satisfies GNG. I think that what Barry is trying to say is that an Act that "regulates a $3.5 trillion industry" is obviously going receive the sort of coverage that satisfies GNG, because it is inevitable that books and periodicals will give an enormous amount of coverage to such an Act, and that the coverage of this Act in Google Scholar (which Barry refers to in an earlier comment above) does actually satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts, you would be right for some Acts, many of which can be minor, but trust me this one is big, and it doesn't amend others - it's self-standing. Or don't trust me, you can see it all here: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sia1993473/index.html - hope that helps. BarrySpinno (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I look up a specific piece of legislation, I would prefer to be directed to even a short article specific to the statute — provided it has some enactment info (in the infobox), an external link to the legislative text, and a wikilink to an article on the broader area of law — rather than just to be redirected to the general area of law. Of course, it would be better to expand this article. SilverLocust 💬 08:32, 6 January 2024 (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.