Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The content can be merged with Sexual_harassment. If declined, the page in its current form needs to be re-written to be encyclopedic. Much of the matter is copy-pasted from the | Press Information Bureauwebsite. Sesamevoila (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete Ok, before I get lamblasted for an opinion, there are a couple things I noticed on this. The first is that some of the content is indeed a direct copy/paste from the above mentioned | Press Information Bureau website - here's some of the text the writer pulled; "The proposed Bill, if enacted, will ensure that women are protected against sexual harassment at all the work places, be it in public or private. This will contribute to realisation of their right to gender equality, life and liberty and equality in working conditions everywhere. The sense of security at the workplace will improve women's participation in work, resulting in their economic empowerment and inclusive growth."  Not being an expert on the laws of India concerning copy/paste/copyright/etc, I'll just mention that.  On a second point, the language distinctly reads; The proposed Bill, if enacted... which tells me that it is simply in debate.  Were we to list each and every piece of proposed legistlation that every country covered by Wiki is thinking of enacting, there would be no time or space to consider most other content (just look at how many years have transpired since the US even had a budget passed!).  This thing says 2010 on it, so when will it be passed or if ever is in question atm.  Though we include proposals that seem imminent 2012 Presidential election, logical by debate 2020 Summer Olympics, or stitched in time Ultimate fate of the universe, I'm inclined to consider something like this when it becomes more than a proposal :)  So, merge is my first thought, but delete if there are copy/paste issues. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO. The first segment is just a copy of text of the bill, not any article content.  The second half is a copy/paste copyright violation as noted above. Once the copyright violation is removed, there's no content except the bill itself, which is not article content. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time of my !vote above, the article was content-free, other than the copyvio. Now that the copyvio has been addressed and actual content has been placed in the article, I am withdrawing my delete !vote.  I now express no opinion on the deletion of the article. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with editing Not all the article is a copy-vio (e.g. the section on criticisms). Contrary to what's said above about the bill languishing in limbo, it was passed by the lower house a month ago and will be voted on by the upper house later this year so it has a good chance of becoming law soon. Enacted legislation is almost always notable, due to press coverage and coverage in legal books/journals, and precedent suggests that failed legislation can be notable too if it gets continuing coverage. The proposed bill already has plenty of press attention and doubtless more in non-English-language media. If this isn't enough then merge it and reinstate it as a separate article when it's enacted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but expand. The bill hasn't passed yet, but it seems to have been significant just for being introduced. It also looks likely to pass. I found a number of news stories talking about how the bill could be applied in different court cases, including how it was ruled to apply to domestic workers (women working in people's homes), which was a substantial ruling for those women's rights. I think I could clean this up pretty quickly, but I'm traveling for the next few days. Could I make a pass over the weekend? If people still feel it should be deleted or merged afterwards, I'd be fine with that, and at least then we'll still have some more detailed content to add to the main sexual harassment article. — Zujine |talk 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep given the amount of coverage it has been and is receiving. It even made the US press when it was passed (controversially) by the lower house on 3 Sept. 2012. I've had a go bringing into copyright compliance, and cleaning it up a bit, but it still needs a lot of work and expansion. There's a lot more to the subject which doesn't appear in the article yet. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note on copyright compliance. The Press Information Bureau, Government of India (the source of the copypasted text), allows free re-publishing of their material for any purpose provided it is "reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" and they are prominently credited as the source . I've now marked the material as a direct quote and attributed the source both in the text of the article and in an inline citation. Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, with the necessary editing. The cut-and-paste content can be rewritten as a paraphrased summary, if Zujine or someone else is willing to do that. I endorse what Colapeninsula said, including the possibility that the topic may turn out not to be substantial enough to support an independent article, in which case it can become a section of another article. The media coverage, however, seems to offer explanatory detail that would be overly specific at Sexual harassment, while the main Sexism in India article seems more focused on culture and society, not legal issues per se. So while a general section on legislation and law might be a good addition to Sexism in India, a thorough explanation of this one bill in that article would just point to needing a spinoff article anyway. So why not just give the article some time, if its supporters will work on it? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 'delete' Keep I'm not too sure if this is the right way of withdrawing my AfD nomination on this article but it's improved tremendously after the impressive editing that's been done on it. Sesamevoila (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage, encyclopedic topic, educational, high value for readers and students alike. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2012 (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.