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.
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. 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
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.
Reywas92Talk19:41, 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.
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.
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. 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
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.
Reywas92Talk19:41, 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.