Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansard of the Sarawak


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 04:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hansard of the Sarawak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Should be deleted along the same lines as the now deleted Hansard of the Malaysia Bill. Seems to be made up, some sort of synth. CMD (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like a misunderstanding. DrKiernan (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#0032; ⋘HueSatLum ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 17:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here indicates that the topic of this article is in fact known as the Hansard of the Sarawak. In addition, the article includes "images" which are actually just printouts of pages of transcripts, shrunk down to 12 pixels for illegibility. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO] ] [[WP:MAGAZINE Might even be a WP:HOAX --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO is not applicable. This article is about a (supposed) publication, not a person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops! proof that I am human, fixed. and thanks! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Maybe this page needs to be renamed. Certainly it does not need Sue's Strong Delete.  BUT quick google reveals that this process of recording "Hansard" is a large part of the legal & parliamentary process in Sarawak.  eg
 * http://archive.freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/politics/sabah-and-sarawak/12973-dap-speaker-tampering-with-sacred-hansard
 * http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/11/19/jeffrey-paints-bleak-scenario-on-sabah/
 * http://www.mmail.com.my/story/let%E2%80%99s-talk-about-ag%E2%80%99s-report-35547
 * It also appears that the Hansard has been part of the English legal system since well before 1800....
 * http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/
 * http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hansard_of_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_%281963%29_-_Malaysia_Bill
 * Origins - "Before 1771, the British Parliament had long been a highly secretive body. The official record of the actions of the House was publicly available, but there was no such record of debates. The publication of remarks made in the House became a breach of Parliamentary privilege, punishable by the two Houses. As more people became interested in parliamentary debates, more individuals published unofficial accounts of parliamentary debates. Editors were at worst subjected to fines. Several editors used the device of veiling parliamentary debates as debates of fictitious societies or bodies. The names under which parliamentary debates were published include Proceedings of the Lower Room of the Robin Hood Society and Debates of the Senate of Magna Lilliputia." {Sounds a bit like wikipedia today huh?}
 * To me, it seems that "Hansard of the Sarawak" as a somewhat important live document, and has been a way for some 100 years, and it is on par to the Congressional Record. {Anyone care to nominate Congressional Record for deletion?}
 * To early cull this stub Hansard of the Sarawak from wikipedia only makes the AfD process look myopic. Remember that the majority of the people of Sarawak have no access to the internet, and certainly do not monitor AFD pages on an hourly basis for any deduction made by AFD cut (and stalk) squad. And can not defend their country as it is being handed over to oblivion by anonymous Wikipedia slash and burn stalwarts.
 * Why do not you reach out and ask for the original contributor of articles, more importantly, to actively encourage him/her to contribute more, rather then cut cut cut.
 * Homer Simpson would be proud, and I quote him: "Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel."
 * Troll? - Tagged to save  PK T (alk) s efforts. Although I would argue that this is a debate, and is an important point to debate and improve.  (Maybe it is the reason that core Wikipedia is suffering from self strangulation, and new editors are fleeing).
 * Leng T&#39;che (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What Leng is describing may well be a valid subject. But it's not what this article describes. What this article describes is "Those official record of the debate and proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on Serawak ..." In other words, this article is talking about the Hansard (record of parliamentary debates) in the United Kingdom about Sarawak. There is nothing in this article about a record of parliamentary debates in Sarawak. It would be like writing an article about the record of the debate in the United States Congress about the purchase of the United States Virgin Islands and calling it "Congressional Record of the Virgin Islands". If there is something valid to be written in this article, it would be better to delete the article and start anew rather than try to fix this confusing and poorly written article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the wikipedia page Congressional_Record as it was at 4 months (Nov 2004). The current Hansard_of_the_Sarawak is just a start, but at the age of 2 months it is (relatively) OK. Consider also that Sarawak has only a small part of wikipedia contributors that the U.S. has. So it may take years for this stub to be a semi-final page. That is what stubs are for.  Why delete it so young? Tag it "stub", tag as "needs to improve" ... anything but delete...


 * Another Homer Simpson quote: "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. " Leng T&#39;che (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are few editors from Sarawak doesn't justify the existence of this article. Is there anything notable about the debates, other than that they happened? Currently this article appears sourced just to primary sources. If secondary sources haven't said anything on the subject (part of notability), neither can we. Just because a document exists doesn't mean we need an article on it. That's what wikisource is for. CMD (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating, viable stubs are being prematurely ejected, maybe AfD is broken. Leng T&#39;che (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I won't be convinced that this is a viable stub until the article clearly indicates whether it is supposed to be about a record of British parliamentary debates about Sarawak, or a record of debates in the legislature of Sarawak. Currently it's about the former, but no evidence has been provided that the former is known as the "Hansard of the Sarawak", and if this article is indeed supposed to be about British parliamentary debates, systemic bias is not a concern because Wikipedia has lots of British editors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Er... The last time I checked Sarawak is free of the "British". Indeed, Sarawak has traditionally stressed its own independence from the "Peninsular Malaysia" and preserve cultural diversity ... Homer Simpson: "Lisa, Vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and eskimos. "
 * In addition, there are clear alternative to cutting this page {you just listed them above}, so the cut it appears only an attempt to assert authority. Maybe someone is stalking the Sabah and Sarawak stubs.
 * Leng T&#39;che (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarawak may be free of the British now, but it was once under British rule. Note the second sentence of this article: "Those official record of the debate and proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on Serawak (Act of Cession) were appointed on 22 May 1946 and Sarawak (constitution) were appointed on 24 July 1946". My recommended alternative for those who don't want this page deleted would be to make it more clearly descriptive of its ostensible topic. If that were done, I might change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/nov/26/former-oed-editor-deleted-words
 * "She [Sarah Ogilvie] undertook a detailed analysis of Burchfield's supplement, comparing it with the 1933 supplement by Charles Onions and William Craigie. She found that, far from opening up the OED to foreign linguistic influences, Burchfield had deleted 17% of the "loanwords" and world English words that had been included by Onions, who included 45% more foreign words than Burchfield."
 * Leng T&#39;che (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (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.