Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill

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. I'm not very familiar with the circumstances of this bill, but it seems a merge could be possible and this can be discussed on the article's talk page. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never implemented, never came into force, with little coverage. Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguably, all of British law is notable and has a place in Wikipedia. Whether or not you subscribe to that view, this case appears to have no trouble establishing notability: searching for the exact title of the bill shows lots of coverage (72,000 hits) and widening the search shows extensive coverage, including the BBC. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:GHITS; and no, not all British law is notable. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of WP:GHITS. However, in this case the point was to directly address the assertion that there is "little coverage", which was the only valid deletion rationale put forward. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah; you might want to click on the link there. Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I'm familiar with th GNG too. I linked to the BBC but there's plenty more news organisations, eg: The Guardian [1] and The Times [2]; many personnel sites (as you'd expect) such as [3]; a joint letter to the Prime Minister from The British Chambers of Commerce, The Institute of Directors and others about it [4]; a press release from the Trades Union Congress [5], etc. Shall I go on? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Google test doesn't establish notability independantly but its a useful yardstick to judge whether something has generated interest or not - if the exact title of an old bill is attracting a 5 figure hit rate then we should probably pay attention to that and not just quote policy. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this, and actually I don't mind that much: but it was implemented, amended, in the shape of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 a little later. Really it should be merged and a redirect should be set up, and I'm happy to do that. Wik idea 21:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a general rule parliamentary bills are not notable, especially private members bills which are ten a penny and mostly disappear into the sand even though there may be a good deal of news coverage at the time. It is different if they become law (ie Acts of Parliament), though they do not always merit an article and in general it is more useful to users if amending legislation is included within the main article to provide a coherent story rather than in an article of their own. I'm not convinced that statutory instruments are automatically notable either (though clearly independent coverage is an uncertain guide here) but I accept that the agency worker regulations probably are. In such an article I don't think a blow by blow history is necessary so I would not support a simple merge, but I assume that Wikidea has something else in mind. AJHingston (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- O-T Comment SIs as automatically notable? I really hope thats not policy since there were around 3,000 published last year and that number seems to be growing and they dont even qualify for automatic inclusion in legal yearbooks etc. Is there a discussion on this somewhere? Bob House 884 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most won't be - especially if a law follows. It's better to refer to it as background. But (and it's not relevant to this as such) if it's a bill that's narrowly defeated, and is likely to be the subject of an ongoing policy debate, then it's relevant enough for a Wikipedia page, I'd think. Thoughts? On statutory instruments generally, yes, there are thousands, and often irrelevant. But many SI's function as independent legislation, especially when the source is a Directive, or as a major set of amendments to an existing Act, or as an important set of rules accompanying an Act. Wik idea 01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bill attracted some coverage at the time. The worst case is that we'd merge with some higher level article about the history of employment protection law such as United Kingdom agency worker law. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge I do think that its notable in its own right due to news coverage but I'd argue that since it was never passed and the EU directive is substantively the same, it makes a lot more sense to put it as a footnote in the directive article. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.