Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867


 * 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 without prejudice to recreation. This is a sufficiently significant subject that I have no doubt that a proper, sourced article could be written about it, but for the time being there is literally no content sourced to secondary sources present in it, and nobody has added any during the time that it has been nominated for deletion. If anybody wants to create such an article, in my view WP:G4 would not apply. Transwiki-ing may be appropriate, but this page doesn't need to stay up for that to do so, since the material is available in hundreds of other locations online. Steve Smith (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



The article should only be a part of the Constitution Act, 1867, if a link to section 92 is required, a link can be made to Constitution Act, 1867 — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested link does not work properly.Raellerby (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean the link to Wikisource, works fine for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Valid summary style split of the long list of various powers granted to the provinces from the main article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Patar knight's reasoning. 70.31.106.119 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Transwikify to wikisource. This is an important subject since it defines the "competence of provincial legislatures", but in its present form it is not an encyclopedia article.  It might be repurposed and restructured to be such an article, but this is probably covered by Canadian federalism.  There is probably only one 1867 Constitution Act, but it would still be useful if the word Canada appeared in the title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's a notable topic, then it should be kept and improved. AFD is not cleanup. The article is just a stub needs expansion. If there's only one Constitution Act, 1867, with a s 91/92, then there's no reason to disambiguate it. Adding Canadian to the title and removing Constitution Act, 1867, would be inaccurate because that's not how the various sections are referred to (because of the 1982 Constitutional Act). Article titles should be WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of ... Public domain or other source material such as ... laws ..." WP:NOTREPOSITORY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC) While a little late in the game, I have added a second article created by the same editor at the same time, with identical format and identical problems, dealing with section 91. Agricolae (talk)
 * I agree with Peterkingiron. It looks like wikisource material, not Wikipedia.  The only source cited is the Act itself, so as it stands it is nothing but WP:OR.  My opinion would change if someone could come up with a journal article or book chapter discussing this Section, but as one of 92 in the Act, I have my doubts as to whether such work exists. (And yes, keep or wikify, it needs to have Canada or Canadian somewhere in the namespace.) Agricolae (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Shockingly, whole books have been written on the two sections of the Canadian constitution that define what the federal and provincial governments can and cannot legislate on. This is a massive failure to meet WP:BEFORE. It should've been tagged for expansion, not taken to AFD. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or transwiki. There's nothing inherently wrong with this content, it's just not appropriate for wikipedia because it's not an article, in the sense that we use the word.  I'm not very familiar with Wikisource, but it seems like the right place for this material to live (subject to people who know Wikisource's charter better than I do confirming that it is indeed appropriate there).  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is already at Wikisource, and it's already an article. Each article defines in the lede sentence what the section does, and then provides the content, which includes many useful links to the powers assigned to the federal and provincial governments. The content may be at the stub level, but it is an article, and it is certainly notable. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per RoySmith or others. There is no content beyond cut'n'paste of the relevant section, and after 5 years, unlikely that it will appear. See no reason to preemptively transwiki, since the text of the section of the statute can be found elsewhere I assume. Martinp (talk) 01:53, 10 April 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.