Deletion of Punjab Juvenile Justice System Rules 2002

Comment: I just realized that I wasn't clear in my point above that if the article is not improved to demonstrate notability (and it does so in a manner consistent with ) then it should be deleted and worked on in userspace or the Incubator
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: but I don't think it's original research in either a Wikipedia sense or a commonly-understood sense.  If it's governmental regulations, it's inherently ''not'' original research.  But I agree with the notability arguments.  In addition, this is analogous to #DICT|Wikipedia's not being a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The points that IP raises above would be sufficient to improve the article, if and only if that information came strictly from reliable sources. My worry, though, is that IP's point is that xe could make this analysis themselves, which would constitute original research.  The very last phrase ("expanded in a scholarly manner") directly implies original research on the part of xyrself or other editors. If the article is deleted (as I think it should be unless more sources are provided to show that this law is |notable), I would be willing to take a userfied version of this temporarily and work with the IP editor to determine if the article could be expanded into a full article meeting our policies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)