Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell

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 delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell

[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)

The article's subject fails to to meet notability guidelines for events. The event was a motion passed by the Canadian Parliament in 2002 declaring Alexander Graham Bell to have been the inventor of the telephone. The motion was passed in response to a resolution of the US House or Representatives, also in 2002, crediting an Italian-American inventor with contributions to the invention, and implying that Bell may have used that inventor's work in his own design without credit. Neither the Canadian motion nor the US resolution had the force of law. Neither body is constitutionally empowered to make binding determinations on issues of this kind (i.e., which individual should get credit for a particular invention). Neither the motion nor the preceeding resolution were intended to produce any effect other than minor publicity. The publicity generated did not reach large numbers of people, nor address any contemporaneous issue of importance (the legal controversy over the invention of/patent on the telephone was terminated in the 19th Century). There is no indication that the legislative actors intended that their publicity-seeking motion could or would lead to the occurrence of some notable event, and indeed, it did not. Thus, while it is possible that acts taken for the purposes of publicity alone might conceivably be notable, that is not the case here. Thus, the article fails to meet the notability criterion WP:EFFECT. There was little coverage of the event. The event fails to meet the criterion WP:DEPTH. Coverage was limited to a short period immeidately around the event. The subject therefore fails to meet the criteria WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:PERSISTENCE. The Canadian Parliament is a notable body, but not everything it does is notable. The same is true of the US House of Representatives. For context, the US Congress (House plus Senate) routinely passes legislation naming pieces of federal property (bridges, office buildings, etc.) after individuals whom the Congress wishes to honor. These are pieces of legislation having force of law in the sense that the executive branch will be required to recognize the naming of the bridge (for example) with signage, in documents concerning the property, etc. Such legislation, although extremely inconsequential, is MORE consequential than the motion which is the subject of this article. It should be noted that much of the article is given to original interpretation/research, and to airing the views of non-independent sources such as Bell's grandson. David.thompson.esq (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and on a slow news day at that. Minor motion that had no effect on anything whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this does not appear to have any significant or lasting impact. It is already covered at (and can be reasonably expanded in) History_of_the_telephone#Invention_of_the_telephone, Invention_of_the_telephone#Antonio_Meucci, and Invention_of_the_telephone#Controversies without such undue weight and detail. Reywas92^Talk 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this does not appear to have any significant or lasting impact. Thousands of resolutions like this one are passed in Parliament, US CONGRESS and elsewhere without any result at all. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invention of the telephone#Controversies. The text of the resolution and Parliemtnary proceedings might go into wikisource. The views of the US congress and Canadian Parliament are mere expressions of opinion. They are not historians and may (or may not) have relied on reliable historical sources. The proceedings of the US patent office and US courts of the period would be proper sources for fact. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2020 (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.