Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cayman Islands Exempted Limited Partnership Law, 2014


 * 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.  (non-admin closure) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Cayman Islands Exempted Limited Partnership Law, 2014

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I will quote the reason given in a PROD by Kobuu: "This seems to only be the law and reads like a legal briefing. I have no doubt that this is useful information to someone but I don't think Wiki is the place for it. Also, the original author no longer exists." 331dot (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. I don't think that a valid rationale for deletion has been advanced. Even if this were a problem (and I don't think it is) it can be dealt with by rewriting the article. If necessary, the article could be reduced to a one line stub and rebuilt. We don't delete articles because they are WP:IMPERFECT. James500 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the criticism that the article is "only the law" is particularly absurd. A WP article on a piece of legislation should be about the law (and especially black letter law). There is no reason whatsoever why it should necessarily include history, politics or sociology because these subjects are marginally relevant at best. An article about law should read like a law book such as Halsbury's Laws of England (a famous encyclopedia of law) and not like a sociology book or the like. James500 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What this article does contain is a large number of expression of opinions that are not attributed to any source. These might be original research, but they could easily have been drawn from one of the many sources discussing this Act. These can be dealt with simply by finding a source for them or by excising altogether, and are not a reason to delete the article. I think the best thing to do might be to stubify the article and rebuild it. James500 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved this article to The Exempted Limited Partnership Law, 2014 and stubified it to remove the uncited material and POV with this edit. The article should now be expanded. There are now no further conceivable objections whatsoever to the article on this obviously notable Act. James500 (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The page is much improved,(the page should not be the law verbatim as it was) but I don't understand why there doesn't need to be a link to where the law is written down(or other source describing its passage). On pages I edit where I talk about a statute I always link to where I found it so others know I wasn't just making it up. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Whilst this article does now include external links (in the references section), and whilst external links are desirable because they make verification easier, we have never had a requirement that an article must be based on at least one online source. The reason for this appears to be that many books and other documents have never been digitised with a scanner and are available only in printed hard copy form. James500 (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there has to be an online link, but it wasn't really clear to me (as an outsider) where to look up the information in any form. All of that said, I hereby withdraw my request given the changes to the page as it stands now. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This nomination should be closed as speedy keep under criteria 1 of WP:SK as the nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator. James500 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 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.