Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom 1996


 * 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom 1996

 * 1) More than 300 KB and I don't see how to split it
 * 2) A collection of external links with no internal inks except in the introductory sentence and in the "See also" heading


 * Delete this ridiculous list. Georgia guy 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Statutory instruments are by definition non-notable - if the issue is important an Act of Parliament is required instead. 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too large to be of any use.  Essentially nothing but a cleaned up fusker of this government site. --Kinu 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This list has only just been created (and is still work in progress) - to split up the former parent page List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom. If it is deemed necessary, this year's page can be reasonably split up - perhaps by breaking it up into


 * 1) 1. 6 month (or a different interval) segments.
 * 2) 2. By SI number - so grouping perhaps 1-1000, 1001-2000 etc.

These separate pages could then be linked to from each other as a "page 2", "page 3" link etc.

The idea I had was that (eventually - when someone wants to create the pages) the most important/controversial/interesting etc. pieces of legislation could be linked to internally, as well as providing the links to the full-text versions of the legislation (externally). We cannot host the full-text versions here as they are crown copyright. The other items in the list are useful as a resource.


 * Keep this can be tidied up and perhaps put in a more user friendly format. Richard B 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Can be tidied and made useful. Ben W Bell 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How?? Please do so if you think it can be done. Georgia guy 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links. Deltabeignet 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But the external links are only there to provide full-text versions of the Instruments (as they are Crown Copyright and cannot be reproduced in full here). The list itself of the instruments is not a "mere collection of external links". As I pointed out above, the proposal was to include internal links to the most notable/controversial/interesting etc. instruments, as clearly not all will be worthy of a separate page. Richard B 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some SIs are notable but the vast, vast majority are not. The list is already available on the OPSI website. David | Talk 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also remember that ALL Wikipedia content is already available at some source. Should we delete everything because it is all available elsewhere? Richard B 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, is basically listcruft, with no encyc. nor useful content. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Way too big and beyond the scope of WP. Articles on really significant and notable SIs, yes. A 300k list of a year's worth? No. --kingboyk 04:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopaedic, just listcruft, sadly. Stifle 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep SI's are important, and there is no reason to justify deleting them. The list may need to be split up into smaller chunks, but that is no reason to delete the big list before the people putting hard work into creating them have a chance to think of a strategy to present the information in a better way. Kurando | ^_^ 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in its current form: my work depends on Statutory Instruments but this list is simply too unwieldy to ever be useful. If the list could be categorised, then it might provide a helpful index into the entirely too-huge list which is all that is officially provided. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this and related pages: there is one for 1995, 1992, 1996 etc.
 * Keep. Reasons like "this ridiculous list"; "Statutory instruments are by definition non-notable - if the issue is important an Act of Parliament is required instead."; "The list is already available on the OPSI website"; "is basically listcruft, with no encyc. nor useful content" show that those claiming them are either ignorant of Wikipedia's policies or of what SIs are. There are many lists that I would consider "ridiculous" on Wikipedia and yet I have never nominated them for deletion. Claiming deletion on that basis is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Claiming that SIs are by definition non-notable is extremely ignorant. A great deal of important legislation in the UK is promulgated by SIs. For example much of current copyright law, road sign law, standards for road vehicles, and pretty much all EU legislation is implemented via SIs. The SIs with (Amendment) and the like in the title do tend to be less important, but that is not a reason for excluding them from the list. It is a reason for not writing an article about them yes, but not for excluding them from the list. The list on the OPSI website is reproduced here at the moment, but if you take a look at the list you will see that there are many, many, many gaps in the numbering sequence. As Richard B says, this is those SIs published in 1996, which number about 2,100 Instead of there being 2,100 odd SIs, 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. Wikipedia is indeed not merely a collection of external links, but many of those SIs could easily have articles written about them. Failing that they could be redirected to main articles, say about copyright law for example. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and while this list could perhaps be further sub-divided to make it less unwieldy there is no call for deleting it. David Newton 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tidy up as per above Jcuk 12:03, 7 February 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.