Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Agriculture Code


 * 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   draftify. There is a reasonable case that the pages do not resemble articles, and there are doubts as to whether the pages are actually being worked on. However, a reasonable case can be made that major state laws might be notable, and the pages in question are also quite new, so seeing if anyone will work on them in draft space is also a reasonable option, and this option has the most support here.

As per WP:ATD-I, draft space pages may be speedy deleted as abandoned after six months if no progress is made on them, although even that doesn't preclude a fresh start. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Texas Agriculture Code

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Statutory laws that aren't notable on their own and might be better condensed into a list like as what's been done at California Codes, such as in Law of Texas or Texas Codes.

Within this nomination, I am additionally nominating the following articles for deletion:


 * Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code
 * Texas Business and Commerce Code
 * Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
 * Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure
 * Texas Education Code
 * Texas Election Code
 * Texas Estates Code
 * Texas Family Code
 * Texas Finance Code
 * Government Code of Texas
 * Texas Health and Safety Code
 * Texas Human Resources Code
 * Texas Insurance Code
 * Texas Labor Code
 * Texas Local Government Code
 * Texas Natural Resources Code
 * Texas Occupations Code
 * Texas Parks and Wildlife Code
 * Texas Property Code
 * Texas Special District Local Laws Code
 * Tax Code of Texas
 * Texas Transportation Code
 * Texas Utilities Code
 * Texas Water Code Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America,  and Texas. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify - These appear to be articles being worked on by an enthusiastic student. They clearly aren't ready for mainspace, but I believe returning them to draft and then working with the article creator can lead to improvements in Wikipedia's coverage of Texas law. The end result maybe shouldn't look like the current attempt, but there's no reason not to return the current mess to his user space and work on it there. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify - Article is only sourced with the statute and Thomson Reuters database, possible notability but needs incubation MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated" is a (very large multi-volume) book. It is not a database. It contains significant commentary on each of the 27 codes. There are plenty of other sources. James500 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Draftify - some might be notable enough to be fleshed out. Onel 5969  TT me 00:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think you forgot to do step IV in WP:MULTIAFD when you nominated this list, as only Texas Agriculture Code has the AFD banner at the top. A great many of the others have since been draftified or proposed via the PROD process by reviewers who seem to be unaware that they are being discussed in this AFD. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did forget to add the AFD banners to those pages, but it looks like they've been draftified by MaxnaCarta, who I discussed these pages and this AFD with over Discord. <b style="color:white">Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 17:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yep. I also support a draftify all of these articles. Can’t hurt to get a consensus in case someone tries to undo all my drafting. They need to be incubated. As a member of the law project I am happy to see articles on statues however analysis is required not merely a stub rehash of the statute. The statute must still be meet GNG. Otherwise we’d become a database of statutes. There’s approximately 500,000 statutes in USA alone. World wide theres probably more statutes than we currently have Wikipedia articles. Not all of them can have an article for obvious reasons. MaxnaCarta (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are not 500,000 codes in the USA, or anything close to that. The overwhelming majority of statutes are not codes. There are 27 codes in Texas. The total number of codes in the USA is more likely to be on the order of a thousand. And the number of legal encyclopedias, treatises and other books and periodicals is overwhelmingly larger. James500 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and this is textbook law. If it is civil law, then redirect to the appropriate code book. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination is a proposal to delete something close to half of the entire law of Texas (population: 29 million). The 27 codes constitute most of the statute law of Texas. Each of these codes satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. Every book and periodical article on the law of Texas contains extensive coverage of these codes. For the avoidance of doubt, these codes are cited by many abbreviations (eg Vernon's Tex . . ., Tex Code Ann, Tex Codes Ann, Tex Stat Ann, Tex Rev Stat Ann, Tex Civ Stat Ann, Tex Rev Civ Stat Ann, Tex Civ Proc, Tex R Civ Proc, and many more). These articles do not meet criteria 2 or 3 of the draftification criteria (WP:DRAFTIFY) and should not be draftified. James500 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @James500 Have you reviewed the actual current text of these articles? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. James500 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure there is much to be decided by editors here as User:MaxnaCarta moved many of this nominated pages to Draft space soon after this AFD was opened. Please do not bypass an AFD discussion by coming to your own consensus via a discussion on Discord. It defeats the purpose of holding an AFD discussion and makes everyone else's participation here irrelevent. AFD is not a place to come to to confirm an editing choice you have already decided to make. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 18:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all While prose descriptions of state codes with independent coverage may be notable, there are merely tables of contents naming the titles and subtitles and are not appropriate encyclopedic content. It's also generally better to have topical articles like those listed at Law_of_Texas that describe real-world applications rather than pages for individual sections of the law's text itself. James500's "delete something close to half of the entire law of Texas" is quite the hyperbole when, again, this isn't about the law of Texas but rather just the names of its sections. Reywas92Talk 20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * These articles are about the law of Texas. They are not about the "names" of its "sections". While codes have sections, the law of Texas does not have "sections". The codes are themselves are separate pieces of legislation, and are not merely "names". It is pseudolaw to describe these codes as "the names of sections". (That line of argument sounds very similar to the strawman theory. Claiming that the article Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure is about the name of the code, and is not about the code itself, is like claiming that the article George Washington is about the name "George Washington", and is not about the man who was president.) The see also section Law of Texas is unreferenced, appears to be WP:OR, and is indiscriminately listed in random order. I could understand a desire to, for example, move Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure to Criminal procedure in Texas, but such an article would be wholly or primarily about the code (eg the law of criminal procedure generally consists of the code and cases on the interpretation of the code), the scope of such an article would have to be determined by the scope of the code (there being no other practical way to WP:SPLIT the article Law of Texas), and such an article would have to include most or all of the material already included in these articles. Per WP:ATD, an article should not be deleted merely because it could be, or ought to be, moved to a new page name. The law of Texas consists of legislation and cases. If these articles are deleted, then we are deleting most of the legislation (which is not covered in other Wikipedia articles). And since many of the cases are about the interpretation of the codes, we would be excluding those as well. That would exclude something close to most of the laws of Texas. These articles are not "merely tables of contents". The introductory sections of these articles are not "tables of contents". They are perfectly appropriate descriptions of the codes. All of the text of these articles is written in prose. (They contain no verse or poetry). A list of the titles included in the codes is an appropriate starting point (ie it is good enough for a stub) for summarising the contents of these codes, and is appropriate encyclopedic content, since the lists are placed in context by the introductory sections of the articles. All that is needed is expansion (though some reorganisation might be expedient). James500 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Title, sections, don't care. These are not encyclopedia articles and they should be deleted because they are only the names of titles and subtitles. A two- or three-sentence intro is not adequate. Reywas92Talk 04:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @James500 The vast majority of commenters so far have argued for these to be moved to draft. You say, "All that is needed is expansion (though some reorganisation might be expedient)." I agree.  The disagreement is where the expansion and reorganization should occur, and at what point they will be suitable for mainspace. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 13:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:ONUnicorn: If you want me to expand these articles, do not move them to the draft space. I will not expand them if they are not in the mainspace. The student who created these pages, and the editor who draftified these pages, have made no further edits to them. James500 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * @Liz I did not bypass a discussion intentionally. If you have issues with my conduct they should be address privately not in a deletion discussion. I did not come to my own consensus. I thought I drafted before the AFD had occurred. If I did otherwise it was a mistake, not me “forming my own consensus”. I’ve always respected you for being someone I can ask for help as I try to assist in backend areas, please continue to assume good faith rather than assume I intentionally went over someone’s head to go around a procedure. First, I believe in doing the right thing and would never intentionally do something like that. Second, I’m not invested in trying to get my way. I’d rather get it correct and there’s a million tasks to do so if my desired outcome isn’t reached I move on and do something else. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh and to clarify after a look at what I did - here’s what I thought had happened. I thought that some but not all had been nommed for AFD. I thought the ones I was drafting were agreed upon to be drafted in the Discord chat, but didn’t realise I was drafting ones listed here as there was no AFD tag. I’ve bungled something for sure, and I think I need to work more carefully in future but intent is everything and I meant well. I would happily have undone my draft if asked. I did not mean to step on anyones toes. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Draftify the lot. Actually, in my opinion, codes of law can be notable, as are cases. It depends. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)