Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equality (Titles) 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Equality (Titles) Bill

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I have nominated this article for deletion for the following reason; Is it Notable? - specifically it seems of temporary interest. As the bill did not progress beyond the committee stage and will make no further progress it has no historical significance and has not received press coverage since a handful of articles in newspaper since it was proposed in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappo198 (talk • contribs) 17:08, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} tag and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 19:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It received significant coverage in a wide variety of high-quality sources between mid-2013 and early 2014. It has been less discussed since then, but it is not accurate to say it hasn't received any coverage since 2013. Here are a few examples of coverage in recent years: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Moreover, the article is pretty well-written, well-referenced, and linked to by more than half a dozen mainspace articles. Deleting it would be doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. Colin M (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there's enough here to meet the notabilty guideline. The fact that it's only a bill does matter, but not that much -- we should also weight the amount of coverage the bill received on an ongoing, long-term basis as referenced by Colin M (talk · contribs) -- plenty of proposed legislation that never is enacted ends up becoming a major story in and of itself and are worthy of an article. Michepman (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. If this is closed, we may consider reconsidering whether or not Succession to Peerages Bill (2015–2016) and Succession to Peerages Bill (2016–2017) are notable. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourced provided by Colin M - thanks for your hard work! --DannyS712 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2019 (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.