Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was '''No Consensus. Defaulting to Keep.'''. Rje 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996
Link to previous AfD on this article
 * A while ago, there was a discussion on the talk page about how to take care of it. Now, one full week has passed with no new information or arguments to keep on the talk page. Delete. Georgia guy 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am new to the subject, but have considerable doubts as to the merit of its inclusion in Wikipaedia. It would be far more to the point to substitute a short article directing the the user to an external link - a British governmetn website where the Statutory Insitrumetns are listed.  This would have the additional advantage that the user would aslo be able to move on to the text of the subordinate legislation in question.  Rewrite.   Peterkingiron 00:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How should it be re-written?? Can't you do so yourself?? Georgia guy 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is already an article at Statutory Instrument, which seems quite enough to me. Golfcam 01:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is the OPSI website with a list of some SIs. Note that is not all SIs for the year. There are gaps in the sequence which are local SIs. Put those in and we have a list with added value in Wikipedia. David Newton 14:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Raw data. Not an encyclopedia article. All the similar lists should be deleted too. Golfcam 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a very good resource to provide in Wiki, which has the space to do so. Any self-respecting encyclopedia would be proud to be able to make such info available. Considering it not worthy of inclusion seriously undermines wiki's credibility to be taken seriously. There are plenty of lists in wiki on all sorts of far less significant subjects.Tyrenius 03:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete its raw information. Its important information but need to draw the line somewhere. As long as associated articles point to government websites, delete. --MarsRover 03:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Quote from comment in previous AfD: "there are a large number of local SIs not listed on the OPSI website. I know of no easily accessible list of those but having one on Wikipedia would be useful for those who try and track legislation." Tyrenius 04:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - wikipedia would be useful as a legal resource if only it didn't AfD every legal article the moment it shows signs of usefulness. - Richardcavell 04:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, although it a rewrite would be helpful. Just because it's dense legal information doesn't mean that it's not encyclopedic, WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource, along with the text of the acts. It's raw data, and as such it belongs in the place for that, wikisource.  If we had the list elaborated with further information, like dates of passage or sponsors, it would be worth keeping here. But, it's a raw data dump, so it falls under indiscriminate collection of information. Night Gyr 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)  Scratch that, it's crown copyright, so we can't reproduce the text anyway.  Are we sure this list isn't a violation of crown copyright? Night Gyr 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure that as we have only listed the titles, we are not in breach of copyright. If listing titles was a copyright breach then every article on a fictional work - such as the Harry Potter stories - would have to be deleted. Road Wizard 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a copyrightable list because it is in an obvious order, ie numerical. David Newton 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: The list is a very useful resource. Statutory Instruments are used in every aspect of British Law from bringing Acts of Parliament into force and setting rules for the court system, to defining the allowed capacity of fishing vessels or the route of a proposed motorway. As they have a impact on almost every walk of life in the UK, the subject cannot be defined as anything other than notable (as some people argued in the previous deletion discussion). The article will be even more useful if we can add the missing local instruments to the list.
 * As a second point, I found an interesting line in the Notability essay, "Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject.  There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it.  It will not create a significant server load as such." Road Wizard 06:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about a topic. Statutory instrument is an article about a topic, this is a list of raw data. CalJW 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Several people have now said that this list is "raw data". Is that defined anywhere in Wikipedia Policies or guidelines? Is there some specified definition for "raw data" and a warning not to include it in the encyclopedia? How can anyone consider the points you make valid if you do not provide evidence to support them? Road Wizard 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT- this is equivalent to a phonebook or directory. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Parliament has its own publication for these kinds of things. This isn't the Gazette. Fluit 07:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the Gazette provides a list of Statutory Instruments. I thought they only published public notices advertising that S.I.s had either been proposed or made. It would be useful as a resource to know where this list can be found. Could you tell me where to look? Thanks. Road Wizard 07:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The London Gazette is not a publication of Parliament, it is a publication of the British Government. It also does not list all SIs in one, convenient, place. There is the Daily List, but even that does not list all SIs, just the ones published by OPSI. David Newton 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Indiscriminate information / listcruft. Folks, this isn't a legal resource.  -- GWO
 * Keep there are lists of roads, schools, small furry creatures from Star Wars, all of which have a home on wikipedia. If you're not interested in it, ignore it. Kurando | ^_^ 08:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Serious, useful information.  Deadly boring, granted.  The explanation at the top and tail of the list should be expanded, and wikilinking certain SI's to relevant articles might make this page more useable.  Page size guidelines are only guidelines, not laws, and the Wikimedia servers can cope. Vizjim 09:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful info, and per Kurando's comments :Supergolden:: 10:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Survived (ok by the skin of its teeth) previous AfD. Jcuk 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Kurando. Markb 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Kurando and User:Road Wizard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original data does not belong on WIkipedia. Dr Zak 12:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and update. No doubt any one of these regulations might some day deserve an article of its own.  The list of all of them is also noteworthy.  Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Get real. Look at the titles. These are mostly utterly trivial non-events. In most cases I expect the people who wrote them forgot about them by 1997. CalJW 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide your definition of trivial and explain how that fits into the concept of notability? Each SI is trivial to somebody because they cover such a wide range of British law. However, you should remember that just because something is trivial to one person, that doesn't mean it isn't notable to another. Road Wizard 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a structured list of information which is within guidelines on Wikipedia. It needs expanding to include local SIs to make sure that Wikipedia can provide a unique resource on this subject. David Newton 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this appears to be a big list of original data- this article could easily be interpreted to be a primary source, and as such violates WP:OR. ForbiddenWord 16:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify that statement? With some people arguing that this page is an unnecessary duplication of existing lists, how can this possibly violate WP:OR? Thanks. Road Wizard 17:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All the similar lists should be deleted as well. This kind of article is raw, blunt data, and is not encyclopedic. It lists the actual data and is not a presentatory article about the data. ForbiddenWord 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it need to be? A lot of the other lists on Wikipedia are "raw, blunt data, and [are] not encyclopedic." They also list the actual data and are not presentatory articles about the data. One of the sentences in WP:OR states: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."
 * This list collects and organises the information from the existing primary sources (the published S.I.s) and secondary sources (the lists provided by the Office of Public Sector Information and other UK government departments). I fail to see how this counts as either raw or original data. If this is raw data, then what do you call all of the other lists like List of United Kingdom locations: N? Road Wizard 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In a list such as the one you've given, many of the locations listed have articles on wikipedia, and as such it is a valuable index. You'll note that these statutes do not, and thus it is not. ForbiddenWord 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You have now clarified the reason for your vote, which was all I was wanting. However if you look hard enough you will find many lists with few or no internal links, such as the List of California ballot propositions 1970-1979, which has acquired only 1 internal link since it was created nearly 3 years ago. If you wish to discuss this issue further, please contact me on my talk page, as I will not be cluttering this AfD with further posts about your vote. Thanks. Road Wizard 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but Rewrite Robertsteadman 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite how exactly? By making this trivia even longer perhaps? Who do you think is going to do it? No one of course. CalJW 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because something will be time consuming doesn't mean it shouldn;t be done - and doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. Robertsteadman 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Raw data that bears no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an collection of information, but an encyclopedia. CalJW 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic content. Equendil 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * QUESTION. Is there a reason this list is singled out? Is there something specially undeserving about 1996 that this gets nominated even twice? There are also List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1948, List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1949, ..., List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2006. Not to mention List of Statutory Instruments of the Welsh Assembly, 1999 etc., and List of Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland, 1961 etc. --Lambiam Talk 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. I don't know why this particular list was singled out, but if it goes then many, many, many, many others will have to go. I think I will start by finding lists written by those who voted for it to be deleted and nominating them for AFD. If they don't want lists on Wikipedia then they will get lots of their lists nominated for deletion. I personally find it extremely galling to have the hard work that I have put in and that others have put in questioned by those who don't even know Wikipedia policies. There are those who have said it is "listcruft" and those who have said that it bears no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. There are those who have cited WP:OR which plainly does not apply in this case.


 * It has been said before that AFD is a poison in Wikipedia and this shows why. I have also lost lists of RAF units that I put a lot of work into in the past few days to similar "arguments". Fortunately being an administrator I can go into the deleted pages and rescue the material for my user space. Wikipedia will not lose the work that has been put into these lists let me assure you of that. David Newton 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You appear to be asking why I chose this list as opposed to another list for a similar year. Good question! I stumbled across this list by Special:Longpages shortly before its first nomination for Afd. I wanted to know if there was a way it could be split, and it was nothing more than a group of external links with no internal links in the body, so I didn't see it as a good Wikipedia article. Georgia guy 20:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it's just raw data, unencyclopedic. -- E ivindt@c 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless somebody wants to make the list useful, by sorting into English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland, alphabeticalise, or even according to subject matter. At the moment it serves no useful purpose. Lists are fine, providing the items in the list link to articles within Wikipedia. --Richhoncho 22:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is sorted into English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish lists for the most part at the moment. You obviously haven't looked very hard at the large link box at the top right hand corner of the article. These pieces of legislation form one coherent series. That is why they are all in one list. You say that perhaps they should be sorted by subject or alphabetically and airily say "someone" should do it. is the appropriate response to that. You want it, you do it. As for subject matter, do you have any idea how SIs are categorised? There are some that are in more than one category of subject matter. Do you want them in the list twice? When it comes to putting them in alphabetical order that would make absolutely no sense. At least in numerical order they are in at least approximately the order they were made in. David Newton 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel suitably chastised, I could do it, but sorting more than alphabetically would probably be beyond me, in my opinion, to be a useful resource it needs to be by subject matter. Actually it isn't sorted in English Welsh etc. I did check before and again, some SI's only apply to Wales, or even one geographical location, ie road works and, as you say, they are in numeric order. As I'm not prepared to work on it, I guess I'd better be quiet. --Richhoncho 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: For those of you voting delete because of a lack of internal links, I am thinking of adding some shortly. Most of the SIs are not in enough depth to require a page of their own, but I was thinking about linking sets of them to a subject page (see my Sandbox for a rough example of how one might look). Unfortunately, I don't think that subject based lists can be a replacement to the existing lists because of the reasons stated by David Newton above. Instead, they can be a very useful addition to what we already have. I had not added any internal links earlier as it was not raised as a problem in the article's recent talk page discussion. As it will not be possible to work on adding internal links after the page is gone, can you please reconsider voting delete? Thank you. Road Wizard 06:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now added a page called Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, planning law and linked to it from the list page. I would appreciate your comments on the new article's talk page on whether you think it is a good idea. However, I now think that I may have been looking at the internal link issue from the wrong angle. Instead of creating new articles about each SI, wouldn't it be better to link to the subject of the SI? For example, I have now added links from the commencement orders to their associated Acts where the orders can be mentioned in a new section. As you will now see by looking at the 1996 List, the number of relevant internal links has increased markedly. This should improve even further once we begin to identify other relevant pages the remaining SIs can link to. Road Wizard 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Actually quite useful for those who can use this kind of information, and doesn't get in the way if you can't use it. So how is Wikipedia any better if all this information gets deleted? --Lambiam Talk 11:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Might as well make an article of phone book listings
 * Keep per Lambiam. What harm is this doing anyone?  I also personally don't like to see articles re-nominated at all, and certainly not less than six months after the original AfD.  --Cheapestcostavoider 18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since this is precisely what categories are for. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. I do not fully understand this recommendation. How does this work? Do you propose to make a separate article for each entry, which then is assigned to some category? Could you clarify this? --Lambiam Talk 22:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The author doesn't understand categories either. There was precisely this argument when categories were first created. What JzG does not seem to understand is that categories are for existing articles. Lists are often more comprehensive and cover things that haven't had articles written about them yet. Sometimes they also cover things that as individual items do not necessarily justify their own articles but that collectively it is useful to have listed. This is one of those cases in that there are many SIs which amend earlier SIs and do not in themselves deserve articles, but the whole list of SIs is a useful resource. There are some SIs which do deserve their own articles since they cover significant areas of legislation. The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 are a case in point since they define a very important information access regime in the UK. David Newton 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the author uderstands categories. They are self-maintaining.  If a Wikiproject wants to make an article in Project space on the notable SIs which need articles until they are done, that's just great.  This list is never going to be filled in more than a very small percentage of cases (they are not even redlinked)) and adds nothing to the list of SIs at the linked sources from whihc it was copied and pasted (hint: if you find yourself copying and pasting a substantial chunk of text into an areticle, that is almost certainly a sign that what you are doing is wrong).  OPSI can be relied on to maintain an up to date list, WP:NOT a mirror or directory.  So, the notable SIs should go in a category, the list is unencyclopaedic. We have many, many precedents for deleting lists like this. Just zis Guy you know? 13:13, 19 May 2006 (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.