Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patent Act 2003


 * 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 no consensus. Despite being widely cited, WP:TNT is only an essay and not official policy. With all editors basically agreeing that the topic itself is notable and one editor strongly arguing that it's not beyond the point of TNT, there is no consensus to delete even if one assumes WP:TNT is a valid reason to do so.  So Why  17:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Patent Act 2003

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article about the Ghanaian Patent Law consists of an introductory section that is a copyright violation (as marked), and an analysis section that, sourced only to the text of the law itself, can only be considered original research. While I appreciate the value of Wikipedia educational projects, such submissions must meet Wikipedia guidelines the same as all other submissions. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a significant parliamentary statute of a nation, I think this article meets WP:GNG. I don't think it's really WP:OR. It relies pretty heavily on the WP:PRIMARY source of the statute itself; however "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I don't see any indication of misuse here. the editors so far have been essentially summarizing the contents of the primary source. What I don't see is any real interpretation of the source. ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.") As I read it, the editors are on the right side of the line here ("A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.") If they go over the line that can be corrected by editing.
 * The article clearly needs a buttload of work to meet Wikipedia standards. But that is a matter for editing; I don't think it needs deletion. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * +Comment; I've just added a refideas to the talk page with some good secondary sources that can be mined, to assist in alleviating the WP:PRIMARY shortcomings (which I still agree should be addressed; just not via deletion). TJRC (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article topic clearly merits inclusion. My point here is that WP:TNT applies: no single part of the article is valid and the entire article needs to be rewritten from top to bottom. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and start again. The article author started the text with a copyright violation, and although this has been removed, I'm going to assume that there are problems with the rest rather than assume that there aren't. I have no doubt that national-level legislation, especially that which widely affects an often-commented-on area of the law, is inherently notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the subject is notable per WP:NLAW, but the article is in such bad shape that I think WP:TNT applies. Also any subsequent article should have a better name "Patent Act 2003" is to general and nonspecific and likely to cause confusion.  Something like "Patent Act 2003 (Ghana)" would be better. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2017 (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.