Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justices of the Peace, South Australia 1862

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 delete. Wikisource is mentioned as a possibility. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justices of the Peace, South Australia 1862

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

This is a bit of a random mess of a list, unclear and poorly cited. It doesn't seem encyclopedic, I can't see how it could be made encyclopedic without a rewrite and change of context (although maybe it could be punted to Wikisource) and I think it is best deleted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty big move the Government cancelling all JP appointments and starting afresh. Has that happened anywhere else in Australia? That's how I saw it being notable as a list. I don't understand about it being poorly cited: The South Australian Register was at the time the Colony's official Gazette. Doug butler (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even clearly explain that this is what's about (nor is the title appropriate if it's meant to be about that event). The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks fine to me as a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of what? The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't see any evidence that the event in question (viz. the complete replacement of the SA Commission of the Peace in September 1862) passes WP:GNG. I've searched for South Australian newspaper articles from August to October 1862, and while I've found articles which state that the event happened, I've found nothing to explain why it happened or why it was notable. I can't find any articles describing the background leading up to it, other than some isolated resignations of JPs; and there's no commentary or letter-writing in the newspapers after the event to suggest that it was thought of by the general public as anything but routine government affairs. Therefore, the event fails GNG per WP:SIGCOV. It follows that if the event is not notable, then the list is not notable – as a bare list of JPs at a specific point in time certainly does not meet GNG as a stand-alone list. Aspirex (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- In the early days of WP, list articles fulfilled the purpose of identifying missing articles on notable subjects, but the typical JP is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely inappropriate as an encyclopaedia article. A transcript of the original document could be good at Wikisource though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 26 January 2016 (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.