Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Chargeability Act 1865

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.

The result was keep‎ . czar 00:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Union Chargeability Act 1865[edit]

Union Chargeability Act 1865 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and no valid sources. There is an ununtilized section, so it appears under construction without its valid template. Brachy08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 00:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. There are entire books on this Act, and William Cunningham Glen's book is already cited in the article. There are clearly valid sources and there is no "ununtilized section". James500 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per James500. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree there should not be an issue of notability, but that wasn't self-evident at the time the article was nominated. I have added several citations and have expanded the article somewhat to provide context. My text could use some attention from a person more familiar with this topic. The Caplan and Spectator articles are available online for free.
Oblivy (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a short article, but a perfectly valid one on an aspect of the English Poor Law. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 23 April 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.