Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Labour's Terrorism Laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 move to a better name, which has been done already. Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Labour's Terrorism Laws

The article is under a POV title at the moment as "New Labour" is a campaign slogan and a description of a particular faction within a party (if faction is not too solid a term). It is a point of view that the Acts passed since 1997 are those of this faction, and indeed most of the provisions were those requested by the security and police services. While a discussion of the provisions of anti-terrorist legislation is encyclopaedic, it should be done in a single article on Terrorism laws of the United Kingdom, not split up by government. David | Talk 10:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move. - FrancisTyers ยท 10:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What is this article intended to contain that isn't already at Anti-terrorism legislation#Anti-terrorist_laws_by_country? Uncle G 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, title fails WP:NPOV, article is redundant to article subsection mentioned by Uncle G. --Coredesat talk 11:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for UncleG based reasons. -- GWO
  • Keep and move. It needs a better name, more in line with Prevention of Terrorism Act (Northern Ireland), which referred to a series of laws in the 1970s and 1980s during the height of the IRA terrorism campaign. (Curiously, the legal narrative to do with that campaign has continued to progress over the years entirely independently of these laws, Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006.).... This particular terrorism policy is deeply implicated with the current administration -- however you name it, and it does need a useable name -- and any inputs from the security and police services have been virtually overwhelmed by the political machinations. It begins with the first very broad definition of "terrorism", and some of the laws had to be rushed through Parliament in a hurry when previous versions were ruled over the mark and unconstitutional. There is a self-contained story here. Goatchurch 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, move (name without the New Labour) and later expand to other governments which will come. --Ioannes Pragensis 14:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change the name to remove the reference to New Labour, and expand to include anti-terror laws from previous governments. Change the tone so as not to focus on the disputes. Improve the article. But for all that don't delete'. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, the article has already been renamed (which was a serious objection). The article covers a burst of legislation covering Terrorism in the United Kingdom that is different in kind and form from the previous Northern Ireland related terrorist legislation. It is certainly noteworthy. The article itself (now renamed) does not seem POV to me (a lawyer based in the UK) and is pretty accurate. It doesn't do the same job as Anti-terrorism legislation and can be seen as the complement of Prevention of Terrorism Act (Northern Ireland). Previous governments (of both persuasions) did not make discrete anti-terrorism legislation in the same way -- the PoT being the mainstay of the law in that area, hence (in my view) the present compass of the article should stay -- though with a bit of supplementation. That isn't a political point -- it might be that a Tory or Old Labour government would have legislated a good deal in the same situations. Francis Davey 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to something NPOV. KleenupKrew 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • rename or merge Artw 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Given the changes in the article including the rename, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be any other article into which this could practically be merged, I would like to withdraw the nomination. David | Talk 18:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's very helpful (I think). Certainly the new name is much better. I think its helpful to have two articles on terrorism law in the UK, because of the big changes made in 2000. Francis Davey 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - better name, now.--Aldux 00:29, 30 June 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.