Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Acts of the 53rd New Zealand Parliament

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Acts of the 53rd New Zealand Parliament[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDB. Primarily consists of hundreds of redlinks to non-notable laws which in all likelihood, never will be notable. It also unnecessarily duplicates a large part of List of statutes of New Zealand (2017–present). Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New Zealand. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kia ora @Mako001. It is a task of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Law task force/To do to split the subsidiaries by parliamentary term, not government. This is consistent with other jurisdictions e.g. List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Matt (Talk) 11:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why duplicate the content then? Seems rather redundant. Also, why does it apparently serve to direct article development (by including hundreds of redlinks) when most redlinked topics are entirely non-notable? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It’s splitting, not duplicating. If the content is still in the original list, please delete it. Schwede 66 18:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and LISTN easily and by a wide margin. There is a very large number of books and periodical articles about New Zealand law. Statutes constitute approximately half the law of New Zealand (the other half being case law). Accordingly, approximately half the content of all New Zealand law books are about the statutes. These statutes have received very significant coverage in a very large number of books and periodicals. Having a list of New Zealand statutes does not violate WP:NOT. The list satisfies WP:LISTPURP as it is "a valuable information source" and is useful for navigation, already has a large number of blue links, and will have more in the future. A large number of the individual Acts individually satisfy GNG and are individually notable. There are scans of some of the books and periodical articles in, amongst other places, Google Books, Google Scholar, Hathi Trust, the Internet Archive, NZLII and Hein Online, and the unscanned books are generally held in hard copy in the National Library of New Zealand and available from booksellers. James500 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

In some cases you will have to search for the names of individual Acts etc. James500 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete this or trim List of statutes of New Zealand (2017–present) to be those 2017 to 2019 only. If the NZ Wikiproject wishes to reorganize the legislation to be by government, that's fine, but identical content must not be duplicated in both parliament- and year-based lists. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. List of statutes of New Zealand (2017–present) has been moved to List of Acts of the 52nd New Zealand Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt, duplication and overlap are potential grounds for merger rather than deletion, this list appears to have content that was not originally in the other list [1] [2] [3] [4], and the effect of WP:CWW is that we cannot "delete and merge". James500 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  In that case keep, though I don't think the existing 15 lists really need to be split into more than 50 of them. Maybe just for more recent ones, or do 1st–5th, 6th–10th Parliaments or something. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 7 July 2023 (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.