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 all per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the consideration of a question

[edit]

I am also nominating the following articles because they are essentially identical in terms of the issues concerning their existence. The first group was created withing the last five weeks by the the same editor:

The second group is older, created by other editors, but I don't believe any different, fundamentally:

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Some of the articles above might be appropriate for transwiking to Wiktionary, though I have doubts about others. None of the articles has any external links or sources other than Roberts Rules of Orders; none has more than a dozen or so edits, even the several that are years old. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. A particular type of objection in parliamentary procedure is definitely encyclopaedic. Plenty of online sources (e.g. http://www.bartleby.com/176/23.html), scholarly sources (e.g. those at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Objection+to+the+consideration+of+a+question%22), and book sources (e.g. those at http://books.google.com/books?tab=sp&sa=N&q=%22Objection+to+the+consideration+of+a+question%22). --Oldak Quill 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some added comments regarding this type of article. Elements of parliamentary procedure deserve articles as any other technical concepts/mechanisms do. These topics are not limited to dictionary definitions and have scope for: history, variations, examples in-the-world, variables, significance, &c. --Oldak Quill 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. (ec with John Broughton) Although RONR is the primary (and only) source in some of the parliamentary procedure motions pages, that is more due to my own unfamiliarity with the other parliamentary authorities than any issue related to the subjects themselves. I'm sure those other manuals have their own take on it. Presumably, you are planning on nominating some other parley-pro articles for deletion as well, but in one sense the case for keeping this one may be even stronger than the others because it does cite The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. I would say that all parliamentary procedure motions are inherently notable. A merge of some of the minor ones into a larger article (e.g. the created and as-yet-uncreated requests and inquiries; which are parliamentary inquiry, point of information, request for permission to withdraw or modify a motion, request to read papers, request for any other privilege) might be appropriate. But this one should probably have its own article. I have created stubs on many of the items at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure#Motions but they have plenty of room to grow; give 'em a chance. I was going to object to the consideration of this question, but debate had already begun. :) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; no objection to similar items being merged, but this is valid content that should stay. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; as per Morven, above with similar items being merged.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - nomination apparently from (sincere, but obvious) ignorance - David Gerard (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all although it may just be better to have a list of some of the more obscure ones. Is there a list of motions someplace? --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See List of motions. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There also is a main article at Motion (democracy) that both Obuibo and I seem to have worked on at various times. In looking at that article and at some of the new articles that Obuibo has created, I think some work needs to be done on the original article to eliminate the duplication that has resulted. I will try to get to that tomorrow. The whole sections on Main motions and Motions that bring a question again before the assembly can probably be moved to the newer articles on those subjects. As I say in my "vote" below, there may be some merging to be done here; for example, I have looked at the article on incidental main motions, and see no reason why that should not be merged into the main motion article. The reasons for the distinction are pretty trivial anyway and, ironically, relate to the first article on this list (Objection to the consideration of a question -- I see that the distinction is discussed in that article, and I am the one who added that in a few weeks ago.) Neutron (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Admittedly, I have personal involvement here, as I created two of the articles in the last group of five nominated above, and expanded two of the others, and also did some work on the Objection etc. article. I had not seen most of the ones in the middle group (starting with Reconsider.) I also am the one who added material to some of the articles from The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, and I also re-created that article, which had been a deleted stub. As for some of the recently created articles that I did not create, I have not looked at all of them. An argument might be made that some of them could be merged back into the article on the "types" of motions they belong to, such as subsidiary, privileged or incidental, but I think that must be dealt with on a case by case basis. For example, I am not sure why we need an article on "Main motion" when that was adequately dealt with in the "Motion" article... but perhaps I should read the "Main motion" article before commenting! The point is, perhaps some "order" (pardon the pun?) must be brought to this topic, but wholesale deletion definitely is not the way. I also was recently invited to join a Wikiproject on this area, so perhaps that is a way to make things more systematic if there is a problem. Neutron (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've been trying to figure out how to proceed along these lines. Some motions, such as motions relating to nominations, might simply be a redirect to an article on the general subject; in this case, perhaps, nominations in parliamentary procedure. This larger article could include a variety of subtopics, such as nominations by the chair, from the floor, by a committee, by ballot, by mail, by petition, etc. Some older versions of these parliamentary authorities have passed into the public domain, and we might be able to obtain them online and do a copy and paste to get these articles started. That might be the most expedient way to proceed. I don't think parliamentary procedure has changed a lot since 1923. In the case of RONR, that would be the Fourth Edition (1915). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Certainly it is possible that some of these articles could be merged, but there are numerous sources for parliamentary procedure that could be cited and compared, plus specific notable organizations (like, say, the U.S. Senate) which have variations on the rules (for example, closing debate in standard Robert's Rules takes a two-thirds vote, whereas the U.S. Senate, relatively recently, lowered this to three-fifths, and the so-called "nuclear option" was effectively a reduction to fifty percent, through the device of a ruling by the presiding officer which -- no matter how much it ignores precedent and rules -- is then confirmed by a majority. It's clear to me that sufficient detail can be found to justify all the independent articles, but it will take time. Before that, merge and redirect is an ordinary editorial decision, and, in my opinion, AfD is used far too often to avoid simply editing.--Abd (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Per above, the topics are certainly notable, discussed in many reliable sources. Should be no problem having more than mere dictionary definition content. Structurally, it might be better to merge somehow, but an AfD is a bad way to decide on the structure of this, it's too complicated. Mango juice^talk 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all per above. Our coverage of parliamentary law and procedure at the moment is extremely weak and these articles are an essential step toward strengthening it. Last week, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, I noted that we had voted on an overly complicated motion and in retrospect I should have insisted on a division of the question. I was stunned when this came up as a redlink. Discussion of the various types of main, subsidiary, privileged, incidental, and restorative motions as defined in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, Deschler, Sturgis, Keesey, and other parliamentary authorities in the United States as well as their counterparts in other parts of the world and their more august counterparts in legislative bodies and corporate settings is a legitimate, significant, and encyclopedic topic, even though procedural formalism in informal club settings is generally on the decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that comment, Brad. It touches on many of the issues that confront those of us who have been trying to expand Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area. Division of the Question is a good example: Does it get its own article? Does it get an article together with Consideration by Paragraph? If so, what is the title? These two motions don't really "fit in" anywhere else. My instinct would be to suggest that each of them gets its own, very small article, but then of course it becomes vulnerable to those who look for small articles to delete. Then as I keep looking down the list of incidental motions, I see three in a row that deal with voting methods, and that is somewhat easier: We can have an article on Motions regarding voting methods, or something like that. As for your points about legislative bodies and parliamentary authorities outside the U.S., that raises a problem. Most of these articles on parliamentary procedure read as if parliamentary procedure pertains solely to non-legislative bodies in the U.S. There is, of course, a reason for that. I and a few others know about Robert's Rules, and I seem (for the moment) to be the authority on Sturgis. But I know very little about how the rules of Congress differ, to say nothing of the rules of the 50 state legislatures, and I know absolutely nothing about either legislative or non-legislative rules in any other countries. The Motion (democracy) article does have a bit of material that goes outside the bounds of Robert's/Sturgis, but I don't think any of the articles do. So where do we go from here? I think we need to move this discussion somewhere else, and the new WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure started by Obiubo seems as good a place as any. For now I think we are going to have to stick with the available resources, and build a good set of articles on Robert's/Sturgis, and hope that those knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure in Canada, U.K., Australia and elsewhere will decide to join in. That will raise other issues about one article vs. multiple article for each motion that different countries have in common, article names, etc. But those will be good problems to have. Neutron (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There is an enormous amount of published material available on every motion in RRO. All are clearly notable, although I agree that all need substantial expansion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (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.