Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City Administrative Code

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 keep‎. czar 19:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Administrative Code

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG for a standalone article. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Government of New York City: The only sources that I can find for this topic were primary sources; however, the administrative code should at least be mentioned in the governmental article.~~
Keep per the good analysis by James500 below. I didn't see these initially, which is why I erroneously thought the administrative code was covered only in primary sources, but I'm satisfied that these at least put the topic of the article over the GNG bar. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. The code has significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. Books like [1] [2] [3] are clearly not primary sources. There are entire book chapters on the code, such as chapter 21 of Gibson's New York Legal Research Guide, 3rd Ed [4]. This chapter contains about 23 pages of commentary on the code and is clearly significant coverage. There are entire periodical articles on the code, such as the TICL journal [5]. The book New York City Charter and Administrative Code: Annotated, published in a number of volumes and supplements by Williams Press Inc in Albany in 1963 and 1964 and 2004, includes a commentary on the code. As far as I can tell Williams Press is the corporate author of the book. There is an article by Reuben Lazarus on "A New Administrative Code for New York City" [6]. James500 (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the law of New York City, containing the codified local laws. Local laws are not ordinances or regulations, but laws on the same level as state laws. This is unique to New York. Since they're codified laws, it's important. If merged it should be merged into Law of New York which is a general article about law. Yes it should be mentioned in the government of New York City article also, but there's only so much info that can be fit into such a high level article. Also, everything James500 says. :) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example this recently came up in the news about § 14-137 ("Subpoenas"), which is a law, where the police were asking for private information from Twitter without a warrant stating "You are not to disclose or notify any customer or third party of the existence of this".[7] There are a great many ins-and-outs about the Administrative Code and its unique vagaries that should be added to this article and would be difficult to discuss elsewhere without this article. This law code is for 8.5 million people, approaching the size of Switzerland which has multiple in-depth articles on the equivalent law codes. And again as James500 pointed out, it's important enough that it has its own chapters in a great many well-known tertiary books and other publications. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the policy-based arguments, use common sense, and read the room with 8.5 million residents and 5.5 million commuters and visitors a day. The scaffolding everywhere? This code. Rent control? This code. Taco carts on every corner? This code. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2024 (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.