Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The law to cut federal state party-funding in Belgium


 * 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 of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The law to cut federal state party-funding in Belgium
Delete - probably a newspaper article or something. Not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The text we're hosting is an unpublished compilation/résumé of texts, mainly newspaper articles. The political plot evolved during a period of time in Belgium. The individual articles in Dutch were not important enough to publish in English, but the whole of the story certainly is. This text offers the whole of the information in an encyclopaedic way. --Jvb – April 3, 2006


 * Delete, just a collection of statements and quotes, possibly a copyvio. Even if it is valid, the article needs to be renamed. — Cuivi é  nen , Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:33 (UTC)
 * What do you think about: The Belgian "dry up" law, see: Could this perhaps be a better name? --Jvb – April 3, 2006


 * Delete per Cuiv...Even rewritten, it'd need to be renamed to the actual name of the law. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Ajdz 17:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Rename. As far as I can see, no other Belgian statutes have an entry (which doesn't mean they shouldn't). However, most statutes are listed under a title that is the name of the particular statute, and the article itself is usually under a category for that country's statutes (i.e. "Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act", which is under the category of "Canadian federal legislation"). If it's significant legislation in Belgium, purhaps it should have an entry, but if not, I don't know if we want to see an entry for every single statute from every single legislature. Fluit 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and rename''' to the proper name of the legislation.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, well, I guess move and rewrite, but thats pretty much a delete... Wickethewok 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Completely unsalvagable structureless incomprehensible POV diatribe. Lambiam Talk 05:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Kukini 05:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons expressed above. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or move or merge to a suitable article; I can't think of any right now, though. -- infinity  0  15:13, 8 April 2006 (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.