Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Not a law library
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 19:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Not a law library
I feel like the contents of this essay can just be merged with WP:NOT. Not to mention it was made by the same blocked editor that made the other essays currently on MfD. Yelps ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ critique me 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. Basically, this adds nothing to existing policies and guidelines, namely the lead of WP:NOTREPOSITORY (which already says we are not a digital library) and criteria 3 of that policy and WP:NPS (which already tell us we don't include the full text of every statute because we are not Wikisource) and criteria 5 of WP:PRIMARY etc. The essay is badly written, and the restatement of existing policies and guidelines is not entirely accurate. But the most important problem with this essay is its excessively narrow scope, which would set a precedent for massive numbers of similar essays: We cannot have an essay for every type of library eg "not a physics library", "not a botany library", "not a cricket library", "not a morris dancing library", "not a garden gnome library" etc. A single essay on WP:Wikipedia is not a library might be acceptable if it was well written and told us something we don't already know, but this essay has reached the point of spam. James500 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - This essay is actually wrong. There is no reason why Wikipedia cannot contain a stub or Start-Class for every statute passed by a national legislature that has been discussed by reliable sources, and national statutes usually have been described by reliable sources. I mostly agree with the nominator and with James500, but they understate the issue. This essay is contrary to the purpose of a general encyclopedia. There is no reason not to have stubs referring to national laws. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - The author of this essay nominated a large number of Acts of the Parliament of England and Parliament of Great Britain for deletion, and criticism of those nominations resulted in the author losing their temper, and then their privilege of editing, so that this essay is sort of a boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - An encyclopedia is not a library, but an encyclopedia can and should have entries for the books in a library, including physics textbooks and botany textbooks, as well as an entry for each species of plant described in the botany textbooks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. I read the nom’s “can be merged with” as “is redundant to”. People writing essays do not get the right to influence the policy WP:NOT. As a userspace essay, there are no problems with it, and it is irrelevant that the user is blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2025 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.