Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian commerce clause


 * 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 redirect to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia. If we are going to merge we really need to have some sourced content to merge otherwise its a simply OR. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Australian commerce clause

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does this not just state a clause, rather than explaining any of its historical significance or anything like that? I don't even think a clause is notable unless in extreme circumstances. Its content is covered by Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia. As a sidenote it's been unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 11:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 11:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Move and Disambiguate Merge and Disambiguate - This page does not seem to be discussing a single concept, but two different primary clauses, with notes on different applicable law. But no single clause exists. So the existing page title should disambiguate to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia and Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, the only true commerce clauses. But the subject of something like Commerce powers of the Australian Constitution (rather than a single clause) which collects and unifies commerce powers as it applies to Australian law could be notable, as for instance this Columbia Law Review Article and This Boston College law review article cover. While the existing page needs cleanup, it could be moved to that title and include treatment of the several sections referenced (51, 92, 98, 99, 102, 104). MarginalCost (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, given the current state of the article, it's probably better to merge any salvageable content into Constitution_of_Australia, but I maintain that a full Commerce powers article could be notable if it was further developed. MarginalCost (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge. There was a previous proposal to merge that doesn't seem to have been discussed, but it also hasn't received any objections since March 2016 so I think this could have been a WP:BOLD merge rather than an AfD. I agree with User:MarginalCost except I wouldn't want to see another WP:FORK; commerce powers as defined in the Constitution can be described in the general Constitution of Australia article or in the Section articles. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but I have pretended to be one on TV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia, which already discusses the interactions with other parts of the Australian constitution. I can't find any references that suggest this is a commonly-used term (or that the phrase "commerce clause" is commonly used in Australia), and the article has been un-referenced since 2006.  It is a plausible-enough term to keep a redirect. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 07:24, 18 December 2017 (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.