Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjab Juvenile Justice System Rules 2002


 * 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   delete. If anyone wants this userfied to re-work into an more appropriate article ask me and I'll provide a copy. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Punjab Juvenile Justice System Rules 2002

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't believe a set of rules in regards to the Justice System are inherintly "Notable". No sources, references, and contains only Original research.  D u s t i *poke* 10:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I don't think it's original research in either a Wikipedia sense or a commonly-understood sense. If it's governmental regulations, it's inherently not original research.  But I agree with the notability arguments.  In addition, this is analogous to Wikipedia's not being a dictionary.  --Nlu (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - What this article needs is an expansion and re-write not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Punjab Juvenile Justice System Rules 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Rules have been made by the Government of the Punjab, Pakistan in 2002, for protection of juveniles in conflict with the law. The article does not include the original text or any copyrighted material of these Rules that may make this article a candidate for deletion. The article can be expanded by including (e.g.) material about the following:
 * What change these Rules have brought about regarding treatment of juvenile delinquents as compared with the adults?
 * What are the shortcomings of these Rules?
 * What are the international instruments involved e.g. United Nations' conventions on the juvenile justice?
 * Comparision of these Rules with similar statutes of other developing and developed countries?
 * Have these Rules proved to be helpful to convince the law enforcers to go for Restorative Justice instead of Retributive Justice in case of Juveniles?
 * Implementation issues?
 * Etc., etc.,

For the above reasons, this article shall not be deleted and indeed expanded in scholarly manner.--182.177.145.81 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Copyright is not the issue. (Indeed, it's highly doubtful that governmental works are considered copyrighted in general.)  The issue here is that this is the wrong scope for an encyclopedia; this is not the place for what would essentially become a legal treatise.  --Nlu (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The points that IP raises above would be sufficient to improve the article, if and only if that information came strictly from reliable sources. My worry, though, is that IP's point is that xe could make this analysis themselves, which would constitute original research. The very last phrase ("expanded in a scholarly manner") directly implies original research on the part of xyrself or other editors. If the article is deleted (as I think it should be unless more sources are provided to show that this law is notable), I would be willing to take a userfied version of this temporarily and work with the IP editor to determine if the article could be expanded into a full article meeting our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I just realized that I wasn't clear in my point above that if the article is not improved to demonstrate notability (and it does so in a manner consistent with WP:OR) then it should be deleted and worked on in userspace or the Incubator. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand Why an article on Juvenile Justice System Rules prevelant in the largest province of Punjab having population of more than 90 million people including juveniles is not Notable?--Tariq babur (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there are probably thousands of such rules. Otherwise, every single law passed in any large country would be Notable.  Take a look at the general notability guidelines--you'll see that the main requirement is that there must be multiple instances of coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2011 (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.