Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana’s Evidence Code

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. Consensus, after some attempts at improvement, is that the article is should be kept. Notability was never challenged in this discussion, merely the article's quality and POV. There was some suggestion for what amounts to an application of WP:TNT, but it did not gain traction. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana’s Evidence Code[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Personal essay, completely unsourced, pov. The footnote numbers ((eg 1988.1, adopted.2) suggest that this is copied from somewhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not unsourced, currently being improved by me. Int21h (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on personal essay style (reads like a book report), no citations for abundant claims of fact, and glaring lack of NPOV. Also lacks proportion and encyclopedic purpose. Still lacks inline references. It remains poorly conceived (judging by by above editor's comments on Talk:Law_of_Louisiana - "articles about each code should each have at least 20 paragraphs") and executed article, better scrapped and content built from a solid foundation, i.e., a single, solid, truly encyclopedic summary paragraph with inline reference in the Law of Louisiana article, as I outlined on that article's Talk page, linked above.

Changes made there I can justify the time to review, but I've spent too much time on this substandard article already. Delete. And add another vote for putting new article candidates through vetting process. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"Personal essay" isn't a type of style. It refers to the inclusion of the original personal opinions of Wikipedians. The article does have citations for at least some claims of fact. It is not entirely POV. An article on a piece of legislation clearly has an encyclopedic purpose. (There are professionally published encyclopedias of legislation.) Nor does it lack proportion. It has had inline references from the outset. And ... I could go on, but none of your comments is a remotely valid argument for deletion anyway. James500 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate as in WP:ATD-I. It seems like the article just needs to be improved. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the material in this article appears to have been copied from an old revision of Ben Bagert. The material was removed from that article with this edit. James500 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Obviously notable. Satisfies GNG, as this type of legislation invariably does. I am assuming that the copyright issue can be dealt with by simply providing the missing attribution of the compatibly licensed material. The remaining arguments for deletion are manifest nonsense that ignore WP:IMPERFECT. The article can be stubified in a matter of minutes and rebuilt if need be. That said, I doubt that any part of the article is a personal essay. The chances are that any expressions of opinion in the article are attributable to the Louisiana Law Review article cited in footnote 2 (which I suspect should actually read "49(2) La L Rev 689"). And the lede is fine. James500 (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I think that I have fixed the attribution problems by means of a dummy edit and a talk page template. James500 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What takes a only a minute is a casual search of a statistically unlikely phrase or two. Pick anything that stands out from the the "original" copy and paste job: "what's old is new" with its direct source, a rightfully deleted section in the Ben Bagert article (itself long noted for POV problems and lack of inline citations where they matter), still on display elsewhere: http://www.thefullwiki.org/Ben_Bagert#The_Louisiana_Code_of_Evidence - somewhere in the history of WP's contentious history of the Ben Bagert article, if you care to search. Wonder why that section was deleted from Ben Bagert article? I'm sure lack of inline citations and POV may have been part of it.

Here, the added word in WP:UNDUE - one man, however influential, does not make major legislation.

Article needs to be scrapped and rewritten as stub from multiple (i.e., both) secondary sources, cited inline, not merely listed, with clear NPOV. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To save you the trouble of searching Ben Bagert article history: user Orion504 was good enough to register an account just long enough to add a now-deleted section (since resurrected as this AfD candidate) to Bagert article back in 2009 - long gone now, as is the user. His sole substantive contribution to Wikipedia, long may it live: Ben Bagert's Louisiana Code of Evidence -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPERFECT makes it quite clear that none of this is a valid reason for deletion. I can see no problems here that cannot be fixed by editing.

Incubation is generally a very bad idea indeed. It prevents articles from being improved by hiding them in an obscure namespace. Didn't you read the recent Signpost article about the severe damage that AfC is doing to the project? So severe that we are almost certainly going to have to shut it down. I can't see why the draftspace won't have the same problems. The article isn't nearly bad enough to justify that kind of approach.

And you are not allowed to !vote twice. You must not use bold text in your post above without striking the bold text in your previous !vote (the one that reads "support").

The grounds for deletion from Ben Bagert was lack of relevance to Bagert himself. Some of the material is about abortive codes of the nineteenth century and 1956 which predate Bagert. Some of it relates to other people including the legislature as a whole. It might be that the person who deleted that material also did not understand the legal abbreviations (mandated by WP:MOSLAW) used in the footnotes. James500 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate as in WP:ATD-I. Vote changed, prior bold text deleted above; I read of "longstanding history" of "multiple voting" and thought it was the law in Louisiana - mea culpa)

First-time editors may need encouragement, per Signpost article, but verbatim copy and paste from deleted WP past doesn't warrant experienced editors' time to "fix" when content already went through editorial mill years ago. Waste of time (not another vote; a declaration). It would be more efficient to completely rewrite -- without WP:UNDUE emphasis on Bagert and restricting content to pertinent material from properly cited secondary sources. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation is the least efficient way to rewrite an article. (We stopped using the article incubator because this approach does not work). You have not advanced any arguments that are grounds for it. The fact that this content was edited out of another article without being replaced isn't relevant because that edit was, frankly, wrong. It was a mistake. The "editorial mill" is not very good at getting things right. In any event, "edited out of another article" has never been a grounds for ... anything. We will not incubate an article because it has (mild) POV. We will not incubate an article because parts of it lack clear inline citations. It is not appropriate to restrict content exclusively to secondary sources. We have a preference for them, but we have always used primary and tertiary sources aswell. That is policy. James500 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the nomination was perhaps warranted, the recent improvements seem to show that it unequivocally meets GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.