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 Speedy keep (non-admin closure). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coroners Act 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• Delete - Article has no sources and fails to meet WP:GNG. Asauers (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 23:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. gadfium 23:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Clearly meets GNG. Also obviously has sources, though they are not inline. A search for "coroners act 2006 -wiki -govt" produces 330,000 hits. Dubious nomination for Afd. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The editor who nominated this is also involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRANSFER Act of 2013 (which seems to be a Bill rather than an Act unless teminology differs in the US), could this be a case of Wikipedia:POINTY? Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also point out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goumpologo. Martin451 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, essentially per quite aptly put rationale by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important bill that has become law.Martin451 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Important work. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anything that looks like a code is inherently notable if verifiable. James500 (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2013 (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.