Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure


 * 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 speedy delete (G12). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article concerns Section 53A of India's law on criminal procedure, which specifies the power to perform a medical exmaination on a person accused of rape. Currently, this article merely provides the text of the section in question. A merger of the section into Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been proposed since October 2014, soon after the article was created. But I cannot see anything worthy of being merged. I have done web searches for news or academic discussion of the section. This article explains that it was introduced in 2005 and gives a one-paragraph explanation as to why. There are some other references which paraphrase the powers that the section provides, such as 1, 2, 3 and 4. There are also quite a few websites which reproduce the text, but I could not find anything beyond that. WP:STATUTE says that a piece of legislation is notable, but I do not think that automatically extends to each section of a piece of legislation. I do not belive my reasearch above satisfies the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG, so I am bringing this AFD nomination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - considering this is only text from the legislation, wouldn't this be a copyright violation? Or are laws not subject to copyright? —Мандичка YO 😜 01:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question. I tried to find some information about that myself. Copyright law of India says that "government work" is subject to copyright, but is no more specific than that. If it was a properly formed article that also provided a review or criticism of the law, I think it would fall under the fair dealing exception. That is why I focused on the lack of sources which provide that review/criticism in my nomination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I tagged as speedy deletion - the whole article is the text of the law, which does appear to be a copyright violation. It can be recreated as a normal article if someone wants. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:03, 9 June 2015 (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.