Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 377 of the Singapore Penal Code
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 keep. --Michael Snow 05:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic in its current incarnation. I don't think transwiki is appropriate, or perhaps legal (my Singaporean law is a little iffy). Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, why don't you reword it to make it more 'encyclopaedic'. You're right in admitting that your 'Singaporean law is a little iffy'. You should not recommend articles for deletion when you know nothing about the subject. The quotes are taken directly from the Singapore Statutes online. There is nothing iffy about any of the information given. Kindly remove this article from consideration for deletion as soon as possible.165.21.154.8 16:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was less than clear with my wording. My concern with the legality was whether it is legal to quote such large sections, which arguably have Singaporean copyright. I believe in some countries that is the case. I was saying about the encyclopedicness – is that a word? – of the entry that it would be encyclopedic if it were included in an article such as Homosexuality in Singapore, but, on its own, it is not encyclopedic. BTW, I am not disputing the accuracy of the text. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The legal code of Singapore is under copyright? PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I believe in some cases that that may be so. Maybe I am misinformed. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be the only country to copyright its laws. Several do. Canadian statutes are Crown Copyright, for example. Uncle G 03:20, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- The legal code of Singapore is under copyright? PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was less than clear with my wording. My concern with the legality was whether it is legal to quote such large sections, which arguably have Singaporean copyright. I believe in some countries that is the case. I was saying about the encyclopedicness – is that a word? – of the entry that it would be encyclopedic if it were included in an article such as Homosexuality in Singapore, but, on its own, it is not encyclopedic. BTW, I am not disputing the accuracy of the text. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the Singapore Statutes OnLine, it states:
- Copyright(c) 2001 Government of Singapore.
- As a user of this website, you may only make copies incidental to your access of this website. You may also print out, and copy portions of the text in line with provisions of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63). You may not disseminate, incorporate in printed or electronic form, the contents of this website and its sample documents without the prior approval of the Government of Singapore.--Huaiwei 17:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting two sentences for the purpose of discussion is not the same as reprinting or mirroring the Penal Code. It is not only perfectly legal but also right to do so. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless Wiki is simply to become the world-wide edition of Halsbury's Statutes. A short summary sans quote and with conect would be more helpful. Also, the penal code probably is copyright, to prevent it being altered in citation--Simon Cursitor 19:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. It only quotes two sentences from the penal code and then describes the history and use of the law. That is legal to quote for discussion and criticism. It is linked from Politics of Singapore and Homosexuality in Singapore and could, in future, be linked to other articles about Sex crime, past and present. It should be wikified but I believe it is encyclopedic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, concurring with DoubleBlue. Frjwoolley 21:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and cleanup. Definite potential for an article here. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting explanation. May need to be moved or merged to a more transparent title. Quale 03:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and cleanup. --Spinboy 05:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Homosexuality in Singapore. --Angr/comhrá 05:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Homosexuality in Singapore. Internodeuser 13:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though it needs a clean-up. I think the law and its development and use is worthy of an article in its own right (c.f. Section 28, anti-sodomy laws in the United States, Section 352 (?) of German law, etc., which are all, similarly, their own articles, from a brief look. James F. (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Germany would be §175, now abolished. AlexR
- Merge with Homosexuality in Singapore. Axon 14:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per DoubleBlue. — Instantnood 06:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per DoubleBlue. -- AlexR 11:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per DoubleBlue and James F. -- Douglas 14:50, 5 Jun 2005 (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.