Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AB 2062


 * 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   delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

AB 2062

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This bill has since been defeated and its number reused. "2062" is not unique to this issue and creates confusion. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The fact that a bill does not have a unique designation is not a relevant consideration because we have disambiguation pages and hatnotes. This line of reasoning would be like arguing that we can't have an article on a person called John Smith because there are other people who share his name. James500 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that a bill has been defeated does not necessarily mean that it is not notable. James500 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're correct on both points, but there have been no substantive edits to the article since 2009 and a search of the title brings up other bills that have used the name number since which creates confusion. Notable articles are updated and maintained. Furthermore, to your point, there are no other legislative articles on WP (California or otherwise) that use the same number so your Disam page comment is not relevant. This is not national legislation nor did it successfully become law. Per the discussion of bills which have similar histories, it should be deleted. By the way, the user that created the article has been indefinitely blocked and this article was their only effort on WP. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The subject of an article is notable if it is "worthy of notice" per WP:N. Whether the article is updated and maintained has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of its subject. There is no WP:DEADLINE for improvements.
 * If the bill is described in sufficient detail in the article, there will be no potential for confusing it with any other bill, which is not a grounds for deletion anyway unless the article is so vague that its subject cannot be identified, which does not appear to be the case here.
 * The argument that this bill should be deleted because it was not national is absurd because California is much larger than many Sovereign nations. Nations vary enormously in size and this kind of argument is not objective. In my opinion, California is a very significant jurisdiction on account of its population, geographical extent and wealth.
 * What happened in previous AfD debates is not relevant because stare decisis does not apply to AfD. James500 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete One of hundreds of bills introduced in 2008; did not receive unusual coverage and did not become law. Absolutely no reason to have an article about it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst coverage of a topic normally needs to be significant, it does not need to be unusual. Wikipedia is not confined to the bizarre.
 * The number of bills is not relevant. Wikipedia is not paper. James500 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * True, Wikipedia is not confined to the bizarre, but it is confined to the notable. This bill is not (and never was) notable, as judged by the requirement for significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Of the two references provided, one is a dead link and the other does not mention the bill. In the case of a one-shot thing like this bill, we also require it to have had ONGOING coverage or lasting significance, which this failed bill does not have. In fact it looks to me as if this article was created only to serve as a POV coatrack for the unreferenced claim that some unspecified people might challenge it in court if it passed. The authors completely lost interest in the article when the bill died in the Senate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not a deadlink, all the information is still there (lots of it), but for some reason I don't understand, the website of the California Senate forces you to go through this search page:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

Just search for "2062" in session 2007-8.

I don't agree with the proposition that an extant literary work can be a one shot thing. James500 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What about the newspaper coverage that shows up in Google News? James500 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - That this bill's number has since been reused is not relevant to notability. However, the bill received the usual routine news coverage in 2008 when it was introduced.  But there has been no sustained coverage of it, nor evidence of lasting impact.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, sustained coverage is not necessary if copies or abstracts of the bill are still extant. A failed bill is not a historical event that is over and done with. It is a piece of literature that can be evaluated as such. James500 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Except nobody has continued to evaluate this failed bill. I.e, no notice is being taken of it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that should preclude notability in the case of a creative work that one can still read, look at or listen to. James500 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) If someone wants to read an evaluation of a creative work, I doubt that he would be bothered that it was published contemporaneously, particularly when such evaluations usually are. James500 (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: While the material seems to me to be encyclopedic, the context matters. Within a larger debate, these paragraphs would be unexceptionable. I would be looking to merge them pro tem somewhere: a section-anchored redirect would be fine. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I just added a paragraph about this bill to the page of its legislative sponsor, Kevin de León. There is now absolutely no reason to maintain this article, and a redirect would be inappropriate because the title is not unique. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ambiguity is not, by itself, grounds for avoiding a redirect. That is what we have disambiguation hatnotes for. To give an example, "libel" presently redirects to "defamation" despite the fact that it means something completely different in admiralty law, Scots law and obscene libel.
 * Why not discuss the Bill in the context of the regulation of ammunition sales. Don't we have an article for that? James500 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is perfect justification for deleting the article, thank you. At best, mention of the failed bill would be a footnote in such an article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A footnote can justify a redirect. And daughter articles can be spun off. You could potentially get down to a history of ammunition sale regulation in California over some relatively short interval of time depending on how much information is available. James500 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All kinds of things can justify a redirect, but a separate article on the history of ammunition sale regulation in California would be a POV fork which is contrary to WP policy. Content of this nature could be referenced in the Gun laws in California article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a POV fork would be something like an article titled "Gun laws in California - The Real Truth" written specifically from the POV of the NRA. By your logic, "Gun laws in California" is a POV fork of Gun laws, which is itself a POV fork of Law, which is itself a POV fork of Information. James500 (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is distinction that is difficult to grasp, but the creation of an article on a topic as specific as "Ammunition laws in California" just to justify the existence of an article such as this one (AB 2062) is very much a POV fork. And that's what you are suggesting. If enough information had been published on the topic and there was sufficient interest, the article would already exist. Your example of POV forks makes no sense, those are legitimate daughter articles. You might want to review this... POV fork. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I said "depending on the amount of information available". You must have missed that important qualification. I wasn't suggesting that such an article should be written if it was soley or chiefly about this one bill. That said the present non-existence of an article on a subject doesn't prove it isn't notable. The encyclopedia presently omits many subjects that easily satisfy GNG. We haven't even got all the people in the ODNB yet. James500 (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.