Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.
Withdrawn. I'm prepared to accept at face value that there is precedent without waiting for links to such to be produced. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Articles for every minor piece of legislation in every country would be an absurdly unwieldly proposition. This is really a directory entry. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm personally not in favour of creating articles on every piece of minor amending legislation, etc, if they can be covered satisfactorily under the principal act or whatever. But this isn't one, and was actually considered quite an important provision by those working in these fields and was not controversial. It is established practice in Wikipedia to have articles on individual pieces of legislation, including much secondary legislation, and I see no reason to make an exception here. --AJHingston (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd keep on this one. It is not the world's most significant piece of legislation, but it was enacted. Only about 30-35 acts of Parliament come through every year, so it's generally notable. Neutralitytalk 21:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are directories of case law, but I can't imagine how Acts of Parliament could possibly constitute a "directory". The nomination doesn't even make sense to me. In any case, as far as I'm aware, it's custom and practice that major Acts of Parliament receive their own individual articles and I see no basis for changing this.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found nothing by way of guideline or policy in the Wikipedia: namespace. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:46, 10 June 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.