Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of housing statutes


 * 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. SpinningSpark 00:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

List of housing statutes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A seemingly random assemblage of housing laws, no attempt to present a global paerspective, and if it did it would likely be unmanageably large and cumbersome. This content is already organized in a category. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, yes, this would be incredibly huge if globalized – not just the many national statutes around the world, but states and provinces, and localities... there is virtually no end. A category (and sub-categories) makes more sense. More useful than a list of all the stars in the sky, but just as interminable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest: We rarely cover other countries in full when it comes to a subject like this.  Numerous articles on English wikipedia are Anglo-centric and Euro-centric, and often they are are focused almost entirely on the U.S. perspective (e.g. Implied-in-fact contract, Mortgage note).    Rather than delete them, they usually get appropriately tagged.  If the article got too big, it could be split up.  Categories can be helpful but would not distinguish important housing statutes from minor ones.  Where is your evidence that the number of significant applicable housing statutes is interminable? The evidence seems the opposite, by the lack of housing statutes listed. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I know I'm forever pointing this out at Afd but since we have Category:Housing legislation -- why not a list, per WP:CLN? Some people do prefer to browse by lists, which can enjoy certain advantages. The potential size of such a list isn't an issue -- we have guidelines on when unwieldy lists are to be split -- nor are any current fixable problems. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case though, this is just a slapdash smattering of laws with no attempt to be comprehensive. So I would say delete regardless unless someone is willing to put int he work to make it a real list, as it stands I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia that we are hosting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A supreme example of WP:DOAL and WP:NOT, plus the reason Beeblebrox mentioned. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like a useful list to me. Which major housing statutes--in the countries listed--do you contend are missing?  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The list certainly needs maintenance and expansion, but that alone is not a reason to delete it. As Shawn in Montreal noted above, it can be split into sub-topics if it grows too large (e.g. list of australian housing statutes, list of russian housing statutes, etc.). I think the real concern with this list is that that the concept of a "housing statute" is vague and somewhat subjective (see WP:LSC, which requires list selection criteria to be "unambiguous" and "objective"). Will this list include local ordinances that regulate zoning, habitability standards, etc., or just regional and national laws? Will it include criminal statutes that penalize burglary? Will it include landlord–tenant laws? What about laws that regulate the construction of new housing? I think the selection criteria need to be defined very carefully, but that can be accomplished through a discussion on the talk page (and if need be, the criteria can be narrowed to a very specific subset of laws that affect housing, such as a "list of mortgage statutes"). I also think this list runs into trouble with WP:LISTN. We don't have articles for housing law or housing laws, in part because legal scholars and practitioners generally discuss laws that affect housing within the context of real property, landlord–tenant law, mortgage law, laws that forbid housing discrimination, laws that attempt to preserve affordable housing, etc. However, I think this problem can be fixed by re-naming and re-framing this topic so that it fits within the framework of an existing, notable topic. For example, we could change this to a "list of real estate laws" or something like that (note that we have Index of real estate articles). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed there are other lists of statutes, such as List of statutes of China. Maybe each of these could be a sub-topic of the comprehensive List of statutes that I am hereby proposing. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , that already exists at lists of legislation, which is a list of lists of legislation by jurisdiction (note that list of laws is a list of amusing adages). At outline of law, there is list of lists about legal topics by subject. That listing includes list of real estate topics, which is a redirect that sends readers to Index of real estate articles. Another option for resolving this AfD could be to merge List of housing statutes into Index of real estate articles, though I can think of some statutes that affect housing but are not really "real estate" topics (e.g. burglary statutes or premises liability statutes, though the latter is certainly debatable and neither of those are currently listed at list of housing statutes). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's awesome! Maybe List of statutes should be a redirect. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My observations on this would be that there are no clear criteria for inclusion in this article, hence the mention of "slapdash" in the nomination. I mean, are we going to list every law on earth related to housing standards? Local zoning codes from every city? Seriously? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , after considering this further, I think you are correct that it is going to be nearly impossible to create appropriate inclusion criteria. For that reason, I am changing my vote to merge relevant content to Index of real estate articles. That list already includes a number of statutes that relate to housing (e.g. Fair Housing Act). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Expand (globalize) and branch off as appropriate. Plenty of Wikipedia articles are "embarrassing," but I'm not embarrassed by the fact that Wikipedia has information about notable laws about very important subjects and an index to find it. This can possibly be seen as a pointy justification for the indef block of the author, who has been rendered unable to defend it. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to make of that comment, but if I'm reading it right, you've got cause and effect backwards. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - all of these are blue links, indicating probable notability for each. A student looking for such statutes could use this as a valuable resource tool. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Possibly original research, and/or education related to law, or political science. Michael Ten (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , why would you relist this? There's a clear consensus not to delete; any further debate on whether to purely keep or to merge would be appropriately done on the talk page, not AfD. This should be closed. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While you may see a clear consensus, others may not. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as useful. It should be organised strictly per country though. Laurdecl talk 02:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Article is basically just a list of bullet points, albeit hastily divided by country. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, lists do happen to contain bullet points... Laurdecl talk 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The better organized ones also contain tables and paragraphs. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. Winged Blades Godric 16:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why this should be deleted. The nominator's rationale is in conflict with WP:CLN and one of the editors above seems to want it deleted because it contains bullet points. Laurdecl talk 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's kind of hard to respond to a criticism like "in conflict with CLN" which contains a variety of advice. If you could link to a specific section or quote what part of it this nom is "in conflict with" it would be easier to know what your actual point is. By way of example, I could see how WP:AOAC and WP:DOAL would seem to support this being a category instead fo a list. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When you say "This content is already organized in a category." it sounds like you think this list is unnecessary because a category exists, whereas CLN states "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." Laurdecl talk 02:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Jacknstock. I don't see the need for this information as being in list format or how this benefits users. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is actually a well organized list, tho limited to anglo-american jurisdictions. It should indeed be globalized, but an article with as extensive a potential scope will need to expanded gradually. It meets the requirements for a list--the individual items are notable, and the list attempts to be comprehensive.  The reason this benefits users more than a category possible can is the ability to include additional information, which will hep the reader find what they are interested in. A category is a bare listing of article names, and intrinsically cannot be more than that. I think there are very few examples where a category that is composed of   or 3 articles, not subcategories, and contains more than 2 or 3 items,  should not also be presented as a list. So few, that I cannot thing of any.  DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This doesn't benefit this project or the users. Also having such lists would show up why MediaWiki's taxonomies and navigaton tools are inadequate, especially for mobile users. Inlinetext (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I could imagine using this list. It would be a pity to throw this away.  I don't understand the accusations that the assembled statutes are "random".  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it is just a small number of statutes from four countries. The actual list of all housing statutes would be so long your browser would crash trying to load it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * per my comment above, I have seen countless articles that are Anglo-centric, Euro-centric or U.S. only. Usually they just get tagged, but not fixed. I agree with you that listing every zoning ordinance from every small town would be huge, but if you look at what the author did, you can see s/he picked the national ones. And they are significant.
 * I notice that you have indef blocked one day prior to nominating this article for deletion, and one of the reasons given is:  "A user with your experience should not still be creating pages that qualify for speedy deletion".  Because of that block, s/he can't defend the article.  I am curious what other articles s/he created that have been such a serious problem.  It seems like quite a few creations have survived.  Why not just force the user to go through WP:AfC than have this long-term user kicked off the site.  I know this is probably not the best place to discuss.  I'm not sure of a better place that would have eyes on it.   --David Tornheim (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was more random a month ago, when this AFD started. But even now, it has four statutes from UK, and one from New Zealand. Why these specific statutes? Quite a few from Canada and US, but none from other English-speaking countries such as South Africa, Liberia, Nigeria, Australia and so on. Why the Ontario Heritage Act and the Jesuit Estates Act? Is there something more special about these than the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 from Victoria, Australia? How were these selected? Beyond that, what about the rest of the world? Will it list Chinese housing statutes, French housing statutes, Saudi Arabian housing statutes? And then, of course, there are all the state laws and local ordinances that apply to housing. You're correct that it isn't entirely random, but a random selection from around the world might be more useful if someone is interested in a comparison. A person merely looking for housing statutes that personally affect them would be better served at a .gov web site (HUD.gov if they live in the US, for example). Maybe it should be renamed "List of housing statute articles" similar to Index of real estate articles (from which it could branch). What it does for us in that case is show the inadequacy of WP coverage of this area. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I explained above here, I have seen countless articles that are Anglo-centric, Euro-centric or U.S. only (e.g. Implied-in-fact contract, Mortgage note). Additionally almost everything I have seen from the legal arena on Wikipedia--except cases--is woefully without citations.  See for example:
 * Licensee
 * Bundle of rights
 * Petit jury
 * Implied-in-fact contract
 * Mortgage law
 * Concurrent estate -- includes joint tenancy, tenancy-in-common.
 * Accord and satisfaction
 * consideration
 * Pacta sunt servanda
 * This relatively new article has hardly been given a chance. As you can see, others have taken an interest in it, and yet, it needs to be destroyed before it can be fully developed?  Look at List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States.  Multiple people pointed out--including me--that there was no WP:RS used to choose which decisions were "landmark" decisions.  People just added whatever they felt like that the editor felt met the criteria.  This is just par for the course in legal articles.
 * "but a random selection from around the world might be more useful if someone is interested in a comparison." No. That would be WP:OR.
 * "A person merely looking for housing statutes that personally affect them would be better served at a .gov web site..." That's not the purpose of the article.  The purpose of the article--as I see it--is not to list every possible statute that has the remotest effect on "housing", but instead to educate readers about the historically significant statutes that have had long term impacts on housing law (not real estate).  This article appears quite useful for that purpose, but perhaps is named poorly.   I wish the author could speak as to his/her intention. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. See Talk:List of housing statutes. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - it one of Wikipedia's thousands of list articles which may usefully provide links to a coherent set of articles. There are many lists with unclear criteria, and of varying degrees of incompleteness. A good reason to delete a list would be an inability to articulate and agree the scope of the list and the listing criteria. This is clearly not the case with this list. Any problems of content or scope definition in the currrent list can be sorted out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 1 March 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.