Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal requirements for child car seats and restraints in New Zealand


 * 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 to Child_safety_seat. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  Yash [talk] 09:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal requirements for child car seats and restraints in New Zealand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is too much of a "how to" and a legal guide rather than an encyclopedia article. It is also a bit of an odd one out in the sense that there are no articles of a similar type for other country. While that is the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument it is something that can be taken into account in this case. Also, some of the links may have been added for promotional reasons (the article was created by a SPA) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 03:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to a new New-Zealand-specific section in Child safety seat (where the legal requirements in specific countries are already covered) and delete this unlikely search term. I can't see a New Zealand section getting so big that it justifies a specific article. Stalwart 111  04:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what would best be done with the article though I tend to favour a merge. However, the title/redirect should not be deleted so that external sites linking here maintain their CC licence compliance. e.g. here. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Query - isn't that just a WP mirror site? As their bots trawl WP, their site is updated as WP is. Or is that something else? If there's a valid need to keep the title, then by all means... Stalwart 111  10:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe this site will delete the material if we do. Even so, our deletion procedures, if not actually unlawful, certainly actively put others in breach of licence. There was relevant discussion here. See the later part of the discussion, particularly Coren's contributions, which might lead to our procedures becoming less abusive. Thincat (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, an interesting suggestion/discussion but it is nowhere near being policy or even guideline yet. That would seem to require a rethink of AFD entirely. Is there a particular reason this article should be a test case? I don't actually think our policies put mirror sites in breach of CC - especially those that simply include whatever is on WP on any given day. Sites that actively keep old content (there's one called speedy delete-apedia or something like that) know they are in CC grey area. If this goes, it will go from that site. The new information in a new article will appear on that site at a corresponding page. But this AFD isn't really the place for that, nor is any other AFD. It's really a matter for WP:VPP. No? Stalwart 111  12:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should say, I wouldn't strongly disagree to keeping the title as a redirect if others think it worthwhile. Stalwart 111  12:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right there's nothing very special in deletion terms about this particular article and I probably should have kept quiet. It is simply that, if it is a piece that does not fit in as the type of article Wikipedia holds, other sites may be good (long-term) hosts. Sometimes people !voting "delete" recommend alternative external hosting. Maybe I picked a poor example site since backup sites are likely fair use anyway. Indeed, it is the "likely search term" criterion that is considered when deciding on keeping redirects and I agree it is not likely in this case. Generally, we frequently routinely deny the attribution our editors are entitled to and which we require of others and I hope things will change. No urgency. Thincat (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You and I are in agreement there, I think. I understand exactly where you're coming from. Best we leave this AFD to the whims of WP:CONSENSUS, but please do recruit me for any organised campaign in furtherance of the above. Stalwart 111  13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per Stalwart111. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge It would make more sense to merge to main child safety seat article. I think the detail should be trimmed down in the process.  I know it is hard to argue that articles should be shorter.  But in this case we really wouldn't want people to rely on us for legal advice, or safety advice either.  They should go to official sources to make sure they are following the laws correctly. Borock (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per Stalwart. The merged section should emphasise how (if at all) the NZ requirements differ form those of other countries.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2013 (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.