Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Annotated Republic of China Laws/Civil Code

Annotated Republic of China Laws/Civil Code
The copy of the Civil Code on en.wikibooks, Annotated Republic of China Laws/Civil Code, is actively harmful to the readers by providing law information that are years out of date. It is not explicit whether the whole thing is from a single snapshot in time, and if so, which revision it is. The ROC government already provides translated Civil code that's up to date at http://law.moj.gov.tw/Index.aspx. It also doesn't try to keep a record of every revision to the Civil Code like at like zh.wikisource.org. Also, I'm not sure why it's at wikisource for Chinese and wikibooks for English, but please don't move the proposed for deletion content to wikisource. As I mentioned, hosting outdated legal information is actively harmful to readers. --Makkachin (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Being out-of-date is not a valid deletion criterion. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedily keep. As http://law.moj.gov.tw does not always archive outdated legal texts, amended Taiwanese laws may be considered evolving works, thus not very good on English Wikisource. As the project starter, I am aware of amended articles. Annotated Republic of China Laws/Central Regulation Standard Act groups unamended articles together for better efficiency to make a page, with Annotated Republic of China Laws/Central Regulation Standard Act/Article 8 listing historical texts. I will soon hide amended articles from the main pages and later move them to subpages. Thanks.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 23:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The harm aspect remains. I would suggest there be a warning header at the top, and a link to the up-to-date translation that's freely provided by the government so users can ignore the harmful content that is kept at this site. --Makkachin (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is harmful? This tone is too excessive. Taiwanese governmental translations of legal texts have no official status in courts of law, so any bad translations of current texts may also be harmful. Please be more respectful.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you didn't like my wording, I can use a more vague terminology and say the existence of this translation is "problematic". If you don't see what's problematic about it, then you didn't understand my explanation and there is no point in reiterating what was already stated. How would you imagine serving completely outdated legal information to the users without any warning serve the reader's benefit? --Makkachin (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this was directly sourced from public domain translations made by the government of China (an if!), does not this better fit to Wikisource? Since in that case, Wikibooks contributors will not be able to expand or correct the text, will they? My if stems from Annotated Republic of China Laws/Civil Code, where it says "The translator is presumed to be the Republic of China, as it appears on the R.O.C. government website." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the above comments. English Wikisource does not accept evolving works.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)