Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional Commission

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 no consensus‎. The only thing clear in this discussion is that this article needs rewriting. But after two relistings, I don't expect further participation in this discussion so it calls for a closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Commission[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)

Tagged as needing sources since 2008. A sort of list of quite different organizations that happen to share a name. WP:N is not established, as this article cites no source that discusses the topic of "constitutional commission" as such, rather than individual ones. Perhaps this could be made into a WP:DAB page. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (maybe delete). The most newsworthy Constitutional Commission today is that of Chile (see 2023 Chilean constitutional referendum). It is not mentioned. Athel cb (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert to DAB:~~ I disagree that "Constitutional Commission" is not notable; it's just another term for a type of constituent assembly. But, this page is more similar to Constitutional Convention and Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), so it should also be a dab. If there were actual content here, beyond unreferenced descriptions of a few commissions, I would propose merging it with constituent assembly, but we don't have that. Alternatively, we could merge Constitutional Convention, Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), and this page into one disambiguation page, since they're all basically the same kind of thing, and have the other two redirect to the one page. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of James' !vote, I would say that the information that he's provided should be added to constituent assembly in its own section. I still don't see the need for a separate article, unless and until that article is too long and we need to spinoff a new article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my discussion with James and his !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but quite possibly split State constitutional commissions in the United States and others. Constitutional commissions (plural) satisfy GNG. There are sources that discuss "constitutional commissions" (plural) as a group. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least Australia and the US) in scope: [1] (see pp 19 to 21; also published at 19 Public Law Review 308). It deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. It seems to indicate that "constitutional commissions" in that sense are not just a name. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least the whole of the Commonwealth) in scope: [2] (see pp 239 and 240; see also p 62). Again it deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. I think this source, in particular, is broad and general enough to make dabification unnecessary. The following deal with state constitional commissions (plural, because multiple states have them) in the US: [3] (see s 546 to p 575) [4] (see section on "constitutional commissions") [5] (see pp 423 to 429) [6] [7]. The following deals with ten constitutional commissions for multiple countries in former British Africa: [8] [9]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in former British colonies generally: [10]. James500 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC) The following deals with constitutional commissions in British decolonization: [11]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in transitional states: [12]. This source is completely international in scope. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should point out that WP:GNG is solely a test of the volume of coverage that exists in independent reliable sources, not the length of any Wikipedia article. If a sub-topic satisfies GNG we do not have to wait until the article on the parent topic becomes too long in order to create an article on the sub-topic. That would be a serious nuisance to editors, and GNG was created to prevent nuisance arguments and nuisance disputes about whether the parent article is or is not too long. I should also point out that that approach is likely to result in the parent article becoming unbalanced, to the point where the sub-topic is given disproportionate space in the parent article. The whole point of GNG is to stop this kind of thing. [I should also point out that Constituent assembly is already 38kB long. It is already fairly lengthy, and does not need to be "stuffed" with even more sub-topics.] James500 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough point regarding article splits and based on source 2, I'm persuaded that a constitutional commission is sufficiently distinct from other forms of constituent assemblies. That said, the several articles we have on this topic are a mess and there should be some sort of discussion about how to reorganize these articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at this moment this page presently needs to be rewritten. I think that anyone who has read the sources should be able to the rewrite the article. I expect that it will be rewritten soon. I do not think that a discussion is necessary to decide how to reorganize this article, because I think it is obvious how this article should be reorganized. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article needs to be improved as there are clear issues with the article (for example empty headings), besides that, I would vote keep

Mr Vili talk 04:38, 23 February 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.