Content deleted Content added
The wisest fool in Christendom (talk | contribs) →British possession: Reply Tag: Reply |
The wisest fool in Christendom (talk | contribs) →British possession: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*:{{u|Slatersteven}} the laws providing definitions of "British possession" are in force in numerous jurisdictions. [[User:The wisest fool in Christendom|The wisest fool in Christendom]] ([[User talk:The wisest fool in Christendom|talk]]) 15:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
*:{{u|Slatersteven}} the laws providing definitions of "British possession" are in force in numerous jurisdictions. [[User:The wisest fool in Christendom|The wisest fool in Christendom]] ([[User talk:The wisest fool in Christendom|talk]]) 15:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::All of which are covered by many separate articles, we do not need an article, that looks to be )(almost) just a list of laws that contains the concept, many of which are no longer applicable. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
*::All of which are covered by many separate articles, we do not need an article, that looks to be )(almost) just a list of laws that contains the concept, many of which are no longer applicable. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::If that were true Wikipedia would not need article on subjects like [[British subject]], [[British nationality]], [[British dominion]], and so on. All of these are covered by many separate articles. Where is the Wikipedia rule that says there can't be articles on subjects that are governed by multiple laws some of which are obsolete and many of which are current? For example, [[The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021]] includes reference to "a relevant British possession". [[User:The wisest fool in Christendom|The wisest fool in Christendom]] ([[User talk:The wisest fool in Christendom|talk]]) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strongly oppose''' deletion of the in-progress article. The concept of a British possession is not, as the nominator claims, "narrow", it is rather, extremely broad, a fact reliably cited in the article. Historically, the concept has been the legal foundation of the [[abolition of slavery]] in the British Empire, the basis for the evolution of [[British subject|British subjecthood]] and [[British nationality law]], the statutory foundation for the [[pound sterling]] as a globe-spanning currency union, and the legal foundation for [[extradition]] procedures within the British Empire and Commonwealth. Today, it remains a legally recognized concept not only in the United Kingdom, but also in various Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth republics, and an important part of British [[maritime law]]. Historically, various definitions have been used, and even today there are multiple competing definitions of legal relevance. Suggesting the article's deletion before it is even nearly complete seems wholly misplaced and is certainly premature. [[User:The wisest fool in Christendom|The wisest fool in Christendom]] ([[User talk:The wisest fool in Christendom|talk]]) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Strongly oppose''' deletion of the in-progress article. The concept of a British possession is not, as the nominator claims, "narrow", it is rather, extremely broad, a fact reliably cited in the article. Historically, the concept has been the legal foundation of the [[abolition of slavery]] in the British Empire, the basis for the evolution of [[British subject|British subjecthood]] and [[British nationality law]], the statutory foundation for the [[pound sterling]] as a globe-spanning currency union, and the legal foundation for [[extradition]] procedures within the British Empire and Commonwealth. Today, it remains a legally recognized concept not only in the United Kingdom, but also in various Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth republics, and an important part of British [[maritime law]]. Historically, various definitions have been used, and even today there are multiple competing definitions of legal relevance. Suggesting the article's deletion before it is even nearly complete seems wholly misplaced and is certainly premature. [[User:The wisest fool in Christendom|The wisest fool in Christendom]] ([[User talk:The wisest fool in Christendom|talk]]) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
::Some words of advice, if you vociferously defend your article as you did at [[Talk:British Empire]] then you're likely to influence the decision toward deletion. Your repeated excuse the article isn't finished doesn't wash, it can never be more than a stub and you've spam linked it to hundreds of articles. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
::Some words of advice, if you vociferously defend your article as you did at [[Talk:British Empire]] then you're likely to influence the decision toward deletion. Your repeated excuse the article isn't finished doesn't wash, it can never be more than a stub and you've spam linked it to hundreds of articles. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:29, 23 October 2023
British possession
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- British possession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a recently created stub, it has the narrow legal definition and has a couple of tangentially related legal cases to bulk out the article. Removing fluff I can't see this article as being anything but a dictionary stub and as such not notable ie it is more suited for Wiktionary. Recommend deletion WCMemail 14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as it (as the nomination says) seems to be a minor law, that is not even enforced anymore. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Slatersteven the laws providing definitions of "British possession" are in force in numerous jurisdictions. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- All of which are covered by many separate articles, we do not need an article, that looks to be )(almost) just a list of laws that contains the concept, many of which are no longer applicable. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- If that were true Wikipedia would not need article on subjects like British subject, British nationality, British dominion, and so on. All of these are covered by many separate articles. Where is the Wikipedia rule that says there can't be articles on subjects that are governed by multiple laws some of which are obsolete and many of which are current? For example, The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 includes reference to "a relevant British possession". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- All of which are covered by many separate articles, we do not need an article, that looks to be )(almost) just a list of laws that contains the concept, many of which are no longer applicable. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Slatersteven the laws providing definitions of "British possession" are in force in numerous jurisdictions. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose deletion of the in-progress article. The concept of a British possession is not, as the nominator claims, "narrow", it is rather, extremely broad, a fact reliably cited in the article. Historically, the concept has been the legal foundation of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, the basis for the evolution of British subjecthood and British nationality law, the statutory foundation for the pound sterling as a globe-spanning currency union, and the legal foundation for extradition procedures within the British Empire and Commonwealth. Today, it remains a legally recognized concept not only in the United Kingdom, but also in various Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth republics, and an important part of British maritime law. Historically, various definitions have been used, and even today there are multiple competing definitions of legal relevance. Suggesting the article's deletion before it is even nearly complete seems wholly misplaced and is certainly premature. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Some words of advice, if you vociferously defend your article as you did at Talk:British Empire then you're likely to influence the decision toward deletion. Your repeated excuse the article isn't finished doesn't wash, it can never be more than a stub and you've spam linked it to hundreds of articles. WCMemail 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have not spam linked anything. Your claim that "it can never be more than a stub" is simply wrong. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Some words of advice, if you vociferously defend your article as you did at Talk:British Empire then you're likely to influence the decision toward deletion. Your repeated excuse the article isn't finished doesn't wash, it can never be more than a stub and you've spam linked it to hundreds of articles. WCMemail 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Slavery was outlawed 30 years before any of these laws applied. This begins to look a but synthy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)