Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish family law


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Scottish family law

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Also nominating:

Delete until there is something there. This is a non-article posing as an article; if this is a keeper, we should have a bot creating these for the 200-odd countries, and the thousands of subdivisions that have law-making powers, and then create "family law", "property law", "criminal law", etc., and each possible combination of jurisdiction and type of law each saying that "Fooian XYZ law governs XYZ in Foo." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scots administrative law, Scots contract law, and Scots civil procedure, all created by the same editor, are equally bereft of information. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've nominated them as well, along with another one I came across. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask the ed. to expand Why was not the editor notified? In a case like this, where it appears an article was intend but not actually started, it would appear not merely polite, but the obvious way to try to improve the encyclopedia. This is especially true as he's an experienced editor with a two-year history of contributing a long series of articles on legal topics User:Wikidea, included at least one Featured Article, Law. Carlossuarez, this is an especially egregious case where it was really rude--not Biting the newbies, but showing discourtesy and lack of respect for the regulars. Not just a question of notifying about the deletion,which is rude enough, but of not attempting to communicate your concerns about the problem before placing the AfD. Uncle G, too, if you think it's a chronic problem why didn't you discuss it with him? But I don't think it's a problem at all: on his user page he says he starts by writing stubs and filling them out--and he certain does fill them out splendidly! His work is to be encouraged, not deprecated. DGG (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you don't believe that WP:AGF applies to you. I don't post notifications to authors; it's not required and it seems like vote-seeking. Articles I have created have also been nominated for deletion without my being notified. Do I express indignation and call out anyone's egregiousness. No, I understand the rules of the process and assume good faith. You, don't, apparently. If you and the community think that articles of the ilk "Fooian XYZ law governs XYZ in Foo" is an OK stub, then we should and shall have more of them, since they seem to be what we want, they'll hardly be disruptive, now. Get over it, as other editors have expressed these are NON-articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This non-notification shows why it ought to be required, and shall certainly be used an argument for changing the guideline. How anyone can think it respectful of editor not to notify them when their articles are being listed for deletion escapes me. Even if you   think that editors do not deserve respect as individuals, surely you do realize that inadequate articles are improvable, and the original editor is in a good position to improve them. The rule of the project is to seek alternatives to deletion, and the best alternative of all is an improved article.  I've responded to some other aspects on my talk page.  DGG (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to change policy, this is hardly the place to do so; notification is a strawman as the author has chimed in and !voted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Editing can be terribly intimidating to new users, especially creating new articles. A stub, especially one that has all the bells and whistles such as this, invites the uninitiated to start editing because there is something there to edit. &mdash;Noah 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:DELETION states that articles that can be improved by editing should be so improved in preference to deletion. Articles on these subjects should clearly be included in wikipedia.  Therefore it is no-brainer to keep these articles to allow time for them to be improved. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep sorry I didn't expand anything, but you can see the template I created:

... and the articles were for that. The point is, so long as there's something there, someone hopefully will do something. Problem is, I'm not versed in Scots law. Perhaps you could post a message on the Scottish Wikiproject? It's not like there's a lack of hard drive space, anyway, is it? I understood that articles should be deleted when they never would be significant, etc: and of course these are all important subjects. I'll paste some extra material in some of them from Scots law for the sake of it, and provide some links. But you're just being a pain in the arse if you delete, because one day they'll be created again!  Wik idea  10:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject is obviously worthy.  This is a non-article that essentially says that Scottish family law is the family law of Scotland - no shit, Sherlock!  The rationale of the nominator seems flawed; the family law of Tonga is also a worthy subject, awaiting someone who has access to the appropriate sources to write one.  As an article that contains little more than a noninformative sentence and a template, it would appear to fall under several categories for speedy deletion.  The question seems to boil down to whether a redlink to an encyclopedia subject is more encouraging to editors who want to start a new article there than a blue link to an empty article waiting to be filled.  I think the redlink is the better option.  A bluelink suggests that the rudiments of a subject have already been addressed, and here they have not been.  The template looks fine and dandy.  But if there are gaps in our coverage of these subjects, it should be obvious from looking at it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Scots law The template created seems to be informative but this is not an article as currently constructed, it is not even a stub.  It gives no indication as to what the article is about (or potentially will be about).  If the editor can add even one or two sentences as to what the content of this article should be.  If not, a user on wikipedia that searches for "Scottish family law" would be better served finding no article and perhaps spotting Scots law in the search results.  |►  ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 16:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is premature. The subject is worthy of a full article; if it is properly expanded, it would be too much to include in the more general article on Scots law. Scottish lawyers very innovative and two-hundred-year old Scottish precedent is still relied upon today in U.S. and U.K. courts; I think this article would be a great way to give more historical detail. Further, I trust the author who created it will certainly provide valuable copy if given time, and I believe others will join. If it languishes for a longer time, I would reconsider, but I think these AfDs are premature. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of notability: these articles could qualify for speedy deletion. jmcw (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * considering that every individual legislative Act is capable of being a base for an article, and every individual case that goes before a court of final appellate jurisdiction, it seems a little nonsensical to say that at general article on a whole subject of law of any national system is non notable. Anyway, speedy as non notable does not apply except to people, groups, and web content. One of the reasons it is limited is to prevent its misuse in situtions like this.) DGG (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An article might be salvagable a one liner that says nothing isn't. If you think all appellate cases are worthy of articles, you'd abide the creation and retention of thousands of Paintiff vs. Defendant articles where the entire text is "Plaintiff vs. Defendant is a case where plaintiff sued defendant." That'll get us to the next million articles quickly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I said not "appellate cases", but "final appellate jurisdiction", i.e. the US Supreme Court or the UK House of Lords. Such articles have been once in a while challenged here, but always or almost always upheld. For the US Supreme court ones at least, they are PD, so a bot could extract the introductory paragraphs & then  they wouldnt be empty. As for US State Supreme courts, or the US Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals or the UK Court of Appeal, I think in practice one ought to show some particular notability. . DGG (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep some and delete some. Scottish family law and Scots property law are fairly unique and notable - Scotland is the birthplace of common law marriage and the feu respectively.  These are two very important concepts in the common law system used today in virtually every English speaking country including the United States.  While many, if not most, state laws no longer use common law marriage, the historical background is useful for college students doing research. So those must be kept.  Per Uncle G and Carlossuarez46 above, I'm not so sure of Scots administrative law, Scots contract law, and Scots civil procedure, which can be deleted if need be. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have added tags and information in the ledes to establish notability, and tags on the talk pages, for Scottish family law and Scots property law. I'm not making an effort to save the other three dicdefs. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst these are more placeholders than articles, one could argue that they serve the purpose of allowing contributions by unregistered editors to topics that we ought to cover but currently do not. Since anonymous page creation is disabled, I think that a necessary condition of deletion of placeholder articles ought to be that the topic is not notable enough for future coverage. In this specific case the topic appears to warrant an article and thus this stub should be kept; the same may not be true of other similar articles. CIreland (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Scots property law and Scots contract law, as both now contain significant amounts of content worth keeping; redirect the other three to Scots law. All these subjects are (potentially) worthy of their own articles, but the sub-stub ones would be better served by redirects for the time being until someone is willing to write them. Terraxos (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a stub. There are adequate sources on the subject as twenty seconds with Google would confirm. We don't delete stubs, we expand them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Scottish family law and Scots property law now. Enough non-obvious information has been added to these articles to make it a slight but valid stub.  Question: some of these articles are about Scottish law and others about Scots law.  Is there a reason for this that I'm not grasping? or should they be standardized with redirects?  My personal preference is for Scottish if it relates to Scotland generally, as law articles probably do; and to keep Scots only for subjects that relate to the Scots language. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe that the nominator fundamentally misunderstands the AFD process. We are not here to pass judgement on the quality of any article as it currently exists. We are here to asses if the topic the article aims to cover is notable enough to merit an article. Is it an encyclopaedic topic? The answer is a crystal clear yes. There are textbooks and learnèd papers on this topic. Just because Trinidad & Tobago family law does not have a Wikipedia article is utterly irrelevant (be WP:BOLD and create one if you like). If Jordanhill railway station (a trivial topic in my opinion) deserves a Wikipedia article, then Scottish family law most certainly does. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. In fairness to the nominator, at least some measure of quality or at least pertinence is indeed taken into account, and the original versions of these articles may well have failed them.  It's easy to imagine articles on encyclopedic subjects that would qualify for speedy deletion.  (Albert Einstein was a German professor with funny hair and a big mustache.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Scots law is a peculiar and very interesting subject. The articles are encyclopedic, and at worst need to be improved. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (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.