Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extradition (Amendment) Act 1994

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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition (Amendment) Act 1994 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article is just about more than the long title of the Act. The only incoming link is from the overall index of Irish Acts. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG. This Act is included in Irish Current Law Statutes Annotated, with significant commentary. Other sources include, in particular: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. James500 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to considering how this page itself could be expanded, something to consider if we are to keep it. However, the mention of the Act and its discussion in annotated statutes is perhaps an argument for the creation of an article on WikiSource. Wikipedia is not a legislation directory, and what merits coverage elsewhere doesn't automatically merit coverage in Ireland. The Extradition (Amendment) Act 1994 mostly consists of amendments to the Extradition Act 1965, which is a more obvious candidate for its own Wikipedia page, with a section on its subsequent amendment. Although a better proposal seems to me an article on Extradition law in the Republic of Ireland, with separate paragraphs on each of the legal and political developments, up to cases such as Celmer. This a better way of writing an encyclopedic article on extradition, than separate articles on pieces of legislation. That's not to say that there won't be and aren't statutes that merit their own article, but this one doesn't seem to be one. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Iveagh Gardens: Retaining standalone articles on Acts that satisfy the General Notability Guideline will not turn wikipedia into a legislation 'directory'. Nor would it result in automatic inclusion of all Acts, since GNG would not be satisfied by an Act merely because that Act exists. The fact that this Act itself mostly consists of amendments to three other Acts (including the two Acts of 1987) is not relevant to whether this Act is notable under GNG. This article cannot be transwikied to Wikisource, because it does not satisfy the inclusion critieria of that site, such as s:WS:WWI. Nor does it fail any of the inclusion criteria for standalone articles of Wikipedia, as far as I can see. We presently do not have an article on the "Extradition law of the Republic of Ireland", or on the Extradition Act 1965. I could create an article on the "Extradition law of the Republic of Ireland" (see eg [10]), but I am not presently prepared to create such an article unless this nomination is withdrawn and closed first. If you want me to create such an article, you should withdraw this nomination. If you want me to write an article on any other branch of Irish law (or if you want me to write an article on anything else, or if you want me to expand an existing article), you should put a request on my user talk page instead of starting an Afd. James500 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I should say I don't have any fundamental problem with there being an article for this Act. Indeed, I'm sure there are a decent number of acts each year that editors could write decent articles on. I highlighted this article because that did not happen in this case. It has remained as the barest stub and as a near-orphan for over 13 years, after editing for copyright issues in 2008. If this article is going to be expanded, then let's keep it. I'll admit that this isn't an appeal to general notability guidelines, but in this case, on how the page has operated in practice. At the moment, there's little added value to this page being on Wikipedia. (On a side note, I wouldn't ask any other directly to write any particular editor; we each have our own time and interests here, so it would be feel presumptuous to request a particular editor to write a particular editor!) Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 10 November 2021 (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.