Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companion rule (Australian Criminal law)


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Right to silence in Australia. Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Companion rule (Australian Criminal law)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The topic that the page discusses is already very well discussed at Right to silence, and at a much greater length. A WP:BLAR was contested by page creator. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks like it was perhaps created in ignorance of Right to silence. A split from that article should not restrict itself to just the Companion Rule which is a common law principle but not the fuller treatement of the subject, which is right to silence. It is not clear why a split is required from the parent article. As the BLAR was contested, deletion is better than redirect, although I do not oppose redirect if others see fit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing this to Merge with Right to silence in Australia, which now exists. I have split this from the parent, adapted, checked and fixed all refs except one which I marked dead. As per the discussion below, this is the better split as it gives the full Australian context in a single article and does not hive out one common law principle from it. I gave the companion rule a section in the new article. It still needs attention, but I think this improves the project. Merge will preserve the companion rule page history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the best way to go with this, as I don't think it's worth keeping two different articles about what are effectively the same thing. Now that Right to silence in Australia has been created, I am changing my !vote to Merge. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Keep  [switch to] merge: because the logic of the nomination is both faulty and not based on any policy. If we deleted simply on the basis that the "topic that the page discusses is already very well discussed at Right to silence#Australia", then we would also have to delete Right to silence in England and Wales since it is "already discussed" at Right_to_silence. It's a horrible reason for nomination for deletion, that refers to no policy to back it up. Huggums537 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 05:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that Right to silence in England and Wales goes into a lot more detail compared to its corresponding section at Right to silence. The article being discussed is very short and doesn't go into much detail. If someone was to extend it to the point that it was more detailed than Right to silence, I would be willing to withdraw this nomination. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure @Jack4576 wouldn't mind doing that once his block expires, and his restrictions allow for it. Huggums537 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also believe he might have some assistance with it from the mentorship offered to him from as well. Huggums537 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even the next keep vote below seems to think this article can be easily expanded. I think it would be safe to assume you could go ahead and withdraw the nomination now with reasonably safe assurances this kind of article would be expanded in the future. Huggums537 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m always happy to add value to an aus law article but I’m not yet convinced it’s sufficiently covered in secondary sources to warrant a standalone article which is why I haven’t voted yet. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and what is being proposed is actually a split from the Right to Silence article and then a merge of this into that split, which makes more sense (as per my delete !vote above). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a merge is reasonable now that the new article exists. I'll switch my vote to merge. Huggums537 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Huggums537, and because there is plenty of legal material on this that could be used to support the state of the law in Australia and justify a standalone article Merge to Right to silence in Australia . The article title should probably be changed to "Privilege against self-incrimination (Australia)" or something like that, which is the term usually used in Australia . Deus et lex (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.