Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Acts of the Jatiya Sangsad


 * 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. The consensus seems to support Keeping this article on the project although there is room for improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

List of Acts of the Jatiya Sangsad

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

WP:NOTDIR. No context whatsoever. Lurking shadow (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Bangladesh. Lurking shadow (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG and LISTN. The Jatiya Sangsad is the national Parliament of Bangladesh. Every book on the law of Bangladesh contains extensive coverage of these Acts. James500 (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That does not address WP:NOTDIR. Lurking shadow (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:NOTDIR does it say or imply that lists of acts of parliament in any country, let alone the world's eighth most populous one, are not allowed? All that was needed to provide context was to add a few words to this article, as James500 has done. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you still want to keep this list if I'd merge it to Jatiya Sangsad? It contains many entries without any regard to their notability, without any information on the individual entries beyond the passing date. This list is still a directory, not an encyclopedic article.Lurking shadow (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is true that the policy says that entries in disambiguation pages need to be notable. But this list is not a disambiguation page. I have not yet seen any Acts on this list that lack "encyclopedic merit" (to use the actual wording of criteria 1). Lurking shadow has not named any individual Acts. In any event, many of the Acts do individually satisfy GNG. [For the avoidance of doubt, none of the entries contain the "passing date": All of the entries contain information other than the "passing date".] There is an enormous amount of additional information that could be added to the entries. There is nothing 'wrong' with this list that cannot be fixed through normal editing without deleting it altogether. James500 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It says showing encyclopedic merit. It doesn't matter if its there, if it isn't shown, it is a directory. Blow this up and start with a good list in the first place. Not this. Lurking shadow (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To expand on this, some lists have only bluelinked entries, there's not much you need to say there. You just link the articles, this is a navigational list. Some lists art for entries that do not merit an individual article because of insufficient(but existing) coverage, these entries should be directly sourced and with the info coming from that insufficient coverage. Lists also tend to stay in the shape they are in after there are many entries(because changing the shape is lots of work). This list is in a terrible shape, only contains a very small number of article links, and there are two sources, one not independent, and one that is an index. And no inline citations. And it has a big number of entries. All of this at once means that this list likely has a terrible future before it, and will not get much better.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. context has been provided and is a notable topic.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: All of the acts made by National Parliament of Bangladesh are Notable. So why List is not Notable?  –MinisterOfReligion  (Talk) 13:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Statements like these carry little, if any, weight. You assert something(that all of these acts are notable) without backing it up, and you miss the reason for the discussion in the first place, that it is not notability which is in question but rather suitability along WP:NOT.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: National laws are notable. Just because an article has not been created does not necessarily mean they are not notable it could also mean no one has gotten around to creating it. There are numerous notable topics related to Bangladesh that have not been created due to the fact that only a small number of active editors write about topics related to Bangladesh. This is not an indiscriminate list but a listing of notable and rational listings. The encyclopedia is better off for having this article and it is in fact encyclopedic.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic of national legislation of a country is indubitably notable; it's inevitable that there will be a need to FORK information in supplementary articles as List of United States federal legislation or List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom show. This article should probably broken down by parliamentary session, but that's not an issue for the AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2022 (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.