Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS ACT Karnataka (PTCL) of 1978


 * 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. Rather horrendous unencyclopedic article. Needs major cleanup and addition of a discussion of the impact of this piece of legislation. I don't find any of the !votes well-grounded in policy '"seems" or "might be" notable and remarks like that). However, there are no good "delete" !votes either, so I have to conclude that the consensus of this debate is to keep the article. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS ACT Karnataka (PTCL) of 1978

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a law textbook. Providing the text of a law, without any context or analysis, does not meet the encyclopedic purposes of Wikipedia. (Article proposed for deletion with the same rationale; PROD removed by article author.) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- very ordinary statute that appears to be some sort of "special bill" .Bearian (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 satisfies GNG and WP:STATUTE. (There will probably be a lot of undigitised print sources sitting in libraries in India aswell). There really is no such thing as non-notable primary legislation (with the possible exception of private Acts affecting very small numbers of people (eg a single individual or family), and exceptional cases such as post office renaming Acts, which might possibly be suitable, not for deletion, but for redirection to a tabulated list of such Acts, and nothing less than that (they are not mentioned in STATUTE at the moment, but notability doesn't automatically preclude a merger)). An Act interfering with property rights everywhere within a (very large) state such as Karnataka is certainly worthy of notice. An Act that prevents an entire class of people from selling their land is clearly very important indeed. WP:MILL, mentioned above, is an absurd essay. This page is not, however, an encyclopedia article. It is just the text of the Act (criteria 3 of NOTMIRROR), except possibly for the section headed "Limitations of the Act" (which is referenced to blogspot). Unless it is rewritten, it should probably be transwikied to wikisource, assuming that it is accurate. James500 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve for the reasons given above. I have supplied a new lead paragraph and moved the article to Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. I don't think NOTMIRROR is an issue now, though the text of the Act should still be placed in wikisource. James500 (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable.Primarily this law is ex post facto /retrospective in nature and carries the problems that arise from retrospective laws. Another point is that because of a lack of information about this PTCL law many citizens in Karnataka have lost home and property. Knowledge empowers people to protect themselves, and Wikipedia is also a source for such information, hence this article  should not be deleted, though it can be improved upon.RameshanJT (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There is not question that the law is notable. But the article, as written, would require a fundamental rewrite to be a valid Wikipedia article. The article as written merely gives us the text of the law, with no context and no analysis. This is pointless. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 The article has been improved giving more information about the law and the administration of the law.RameshanJT (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and add context. This may well be important enough, but this cannot be seen with context. I do not think we have ever accepted that all public legislation is notable, and this is state, not national legislation. I think this probably is notable however as addressing a major social issue  DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether this is federal or state legislation is irrelevant. Karnataka has a much larger population than many sovereign nations. And of course state legislation is still binding in its terms. It is no less the law for having been passed at the state level. It is extremely unlikely that a public Act would fail to be notable. James500 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep No policy backed reason provided. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The policy backed reason refers to WP:NOT. Pages whose entire text consists of the text of a law, with no context or analysis provided, do not fit into the definition of what Wikipedia is trying to produce. An article about the law, with a summary of its contents and a well-cited analysis of its context (why it was enacted) and its effects would be a welcome addition to the project, but that's not what we have, and we'd have to completely rewrite the existing article to create that article. In general, if an article requires a complete rewrite from top to bottom to come into line with the project's policies, it is a valid candidate for deletion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing and explaining so well, you are very much correct but if I were you, I would be asking relevant wikiprojects or noticeboards for help. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But that is no longer true of this article. The introduction that I added to the article is not copied from the text of the Act and cannot therefore violate NOTMIRROR. It would constitute a valid stub in of itself. Sources are available, and whether they are cited in the article at the moment is irrelevant. James500 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And while we are on the subject, the correct procedure for dealing with a copy paste of a public domain source is to tag it with Template:Copy to Wikisource, ask the wikisource admins to import it, then nominate it under CSD A5 once, and only once, it has been transwikied. This kind of thing is never brought to AfD. James500 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove irrelevant actual text of the law and add a thorough explanation and analysis of the associated social issues. The topic seems notable, but the article currently is mess. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I won't oppose the keeping of this stub, but it still needs a lot of work to get to WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2014 (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.