Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judiciary Act

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 Keep. Freestylefrappe has taken up the subject of the splitting of the article on Talk:Judiciary Act. There is also a discussion there about renaming the article and restoring the previous equal-weight disambiguation. Neither the nominator nor anyone else wants an administrator to delete this article. (The only help from administrators that may be required will involve moving an article over an edited redirect and a history-only undeletion, for which Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Deletion review are the places, not here.) Uncle G 01:03:42, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

[edit] Judiciary Act

This page says nothing about what a Judiciary Act is. Each individual act should be split into individual pages. Please Delete and Split. freestylefrappe 05:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for the moment. Important legislation in the US. Any discussion about whether it should be a disambiguation page should be conducted on its talk page. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong speedy keep This nomination is nothing but patent nonsense. How precisely does one delete and split? If you delete, there's nothing to split; if you split, then delete, you're destroying the edit histories and blatantly ignoring the GFDL. CanadianCaesar 05:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously and rename to Judiciary Acts (United States) or something like that. -EDM 06:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As capital. Trollderella 06:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but a little comment I'm fed up finding articles (and particularly legal ones) that assume, but don't state, that they are refering to the US. No problem with lots of US articles - lots of problems with the assumption that the US is the default subject matter arround here. If it is a nation specific article, it should always say so in the title, or failing that in the first line. --Doc (?) 09:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I substantially revised this article back on January 6–8. Back then it was named "Judiciary Acts (US)", and there was a disambiguation page at Judiciary Act. On January 26, User:Neutrality deleted the disambiguation page, moved "Judiciary Acts (US)" to "Judiciary Act", and put a disambiguation link to the Australian Judiciary Act at the top of the page. I would be perfectly happy if the original situation were restored. — DLJessup (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That restoration would be a good thing. -EDM 15:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I have no problem with the disambiguation situation as it is now. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:07, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
• rename to something better. Roodog2k 16:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. fwiw, I think the disambiguation works as is. Dottore So 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• The correct template for this is {{split}}, not {{subst:vfd}}. Nobody wants an article deleted here. Indeed, what is desired by some editors is for content to be undeleted. Wikipedia:Pages for deletion is not the place for this. DLJessup, EDM, and Doc glasgow: Please discuss renaming back to Judiciary Acts (US) and then undeleting the original disambiguation on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Freestylefrappe: Please discuss your proposed split on Talk:Judiciary Act. Uncle G 19:04:26, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • There's no need to wag fingers at particular participants in this discussion and direct them to take comments elsewhere. Those who care about this subject are here and reading it; it's useful to have the discussion in context, here provided by the unbroken string of keep votes. Hall-monitoring is unhelpful. -EDM 19:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I was unaware of the Split tag. Uncle G is correct; I dont have a desire to get rid of the info, I just see no point for this to be grouped together on one page. freestylefrappe 20:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, showing people where the forums are for what they actually desire to be done and what the actual various tools are that are available is helpful, as you can see. ☺ Nominating an article for deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. But sometimes editors don't know about the other tools. Uncle G 01:03:42, 2005-08-27 (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.