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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 10:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Act to incorporate the German Society of Montreal[edit]

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

Not a significant subject. Could be merged with German Society of Montreal. Staglit (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale behind writing the article was to back up the article German Society of Montreal with additional information and to create a record of information from legal sources that is not easily found. The German Society is an important cultural institution for Montreal's German population and heritage. Nico Ahn (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge Not really appropriate for a separate article . The rationale is inadequate, as the act has no real significance except in relation to the society. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Articles are created on notable subjects with coverage in reliable and independent sources, not to record every single bit of "not easily found" information. If the law was particularly controversial, with a complex history and tumultuous passage that is widely documented in history books, a separate article might be warranted, but from the article and its minimal sources, there doesn't seem to be much to say about this law. The only sources are official publications, with no commentary from historians or contemporary writers. Hence it makes more sense to cover this in the article on the German Society of Montreal. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After six hours of work had gone into putting together this article, receiving a notice within 1 hour that the article that one's article is unwanted on Wikipedia makes me think twice about contributing in the future. We have moved the article to our website http://www.germansociety.ca/history/incorporation. If this article is kept, it could be linked in a larger article on what happened to colonial laws in Canada after confederation, since it is really quite tricky to find out what laws were kept, repealed or merged into other laws, and who took over jurisdiction (provinces or the federal government). Nico Ahn (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did someone say the content was unwanted? From what I can see, some are ~~!voting~~ responding keep and others merge but no one has suggested it be deleted entirely. If people are ~~!voting~~ responding to keep the content in one form or another it seems to me it isn't unwanted. Even if the content was unwanted, that happens, and it's nothing personal. It's just that not everything belongs in an encyclopedia. Ca2james (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acts of Parliament are normally worthy of notice, which is all that N actually requires. The article isn't overly short and detaching it from the main article increases clarity of presentation, a more important consideration than nitpicking about sources. Amendments and case law, if they exist, are far more important than the writings of historians. This Act is more likely to be cited by chapter than by title, with a great variety of abbreviations and variations that will make searches very difficult. And finding chapter 60 of 1865 or 28 Victoria etc. probably means plowing through large numbers of statutes from other parts of the former British Empire that have the same designation because these people didn't bother to distinguish. A presumption of notability avoids that problem. I am unable to accept the proposition that this Act is not important or likely to have received coverage. In the UK, we have already reached the stage where even private Acts are being revised and are therefore receiving secondary coverage because they are important, so this public Act should have no problem. I have no problem with official publications such as reports of parliamentary proceedings either, because they appear exist, not for the purpose of promotion, but rather to satisy public demand for information. I also do not want us to lose productive new editors because of this kind of nomination, something that happens far too often. James500 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having given the matter some thought, I think that it is reasonable to assume that there will be case law dealing with the interpretation of the expressions and clauses of this Act, and that the Act will therefore have received at least implicit coverage in digests and like works. (Case law on the use of an expression in one Act may be applicable to its use in another if the context is similar). James500 (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of the Sister Societies of the German Society are also governed by their own act from the 1800s. One example is the Act to incorporate the St. Andrew's Society of Montreal (22 Vict 1858, Cap. CXXXVIII) which has provisions that are much more restrictive than those of the Act to incorporate the German Society of Montreal. Nico Ahn (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There isn't enough here for a separate article as the legislation itself is not controversial or far-reaching and its overall impact is minor. This information does have a place in the German Society of Montreal article, however, as it is a piece of that institution's history. Ca2james (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether this Act is independently notable (and while I suspect it is, but not being Canadian am reluctant to take that as a firm position), this seems like an excellent application of WP:SPINOUT, allowing additional detail on one aspect of German Society of Montreal which would be tedious over-detail if merged into the main article. If everything in this article were included in the parent, it would appear to be digression. By having it in its own article, it permits a higher level of detail for those who are interested in the Act itself. TJRC (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The organization itself is notable, and the act to incorporate it would be a legitimate thing to mention in the organization's article — but we do not need a separate article about the legislation itself, since it's notable only as an aspect of the organization and not as a thing in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Act is not merely an aspect of the organisation. It is also an aspect of the law of Canada. James500 (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian government has passed many laws over the years that aren't actually noteworthy enough to actually warrant their own independent articles. This is one of them, as the law had no discernible impact on anything except the founding of one specific organization — so while it merits mention in the organization's article, it is not a topic that's sufficiently important in its own right to warrant a separate article. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Act did not found the society. It incorporated the society (which already existed as an unincorporated association) and gave it a variety of powers and duties. I would not be suprised if those powers and duties are not exceptional compared to corporations which are not statutory. Moreover these powers and duties do not exist in a vacuum. They potentially affect other persons, particularly in relation to property. James500 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with James500's comments. The act does bring up an interesting legal issue. There are many statutes that remain in force in Canadian law that date back to the pre-Confederation time, that are no longer listed in the current statutes. With this act for example, there is also the question if the Society today is under federal or provincial jurisdiction, as the organization was incorporated by something that predates the current jurisdictional structures. TJRC refers to WP:SPINOUT: When I created this Wikipedia article as its own article, it was to make the article about the organization easier to read and to allow for "a higher level of detail" than in the Society's main article. Nico Ahn (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well referenced, so I believe WP:GNG is met. It is, perhaps, a little quirky that we present the day-by-day calendar of how the bill wound its way through the legislative process, but that's OK. If this was about a modern day bill, I would call it trivia, but to have that level of detail about a 150 year old piece of legislation really is the heart and soul of something which calls itself an encyclopedia. One of Wikipedia's flaws is that it is too much about what's happening today, and research is too much about what the almighty Google can serve up on a search results page. Having a well-researched piece on a historical topic is what we want to be encouraging. The German Society of Montreal as an organization, and the piece of legislation which caused it to be formed, are sufficiently distinct concepts that having two articles (each of them, well written, I might add) instead of a single merged one, makes sense. Sorry to have gone on so long. Did I mention that we should keep this article? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2014 (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.