Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts in Common Law Torts
- 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 and move (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that article cleanup and moving it to List of basic tort law topics is appropriate action, per Wikipedia:SNOW of Celarnor's proposal. WilliamH (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concepts in Common Law torts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A "glossary of terms" article. Multiple fork of existing articles. Smells like a copyvio. At best should be reduced to a "list of tort topics" with links to separate articles. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm in the process of fixing the content right now. This subject is WICU material, not AfD material. Celarnor Talk to me 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Afd is not for cleanup. SunCreator (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - needs sources, but the content is clearly useful, notable and encyclopaedic. As for 'smells like a copyvio', I would advise the assumption of good faith unless that is actually proved. Terraxos (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've finished putting it in line with the contents of the tort law template and I think it needs a move to List of basic tort law topics. Regarding sourcing concerns, it basically mirrors the content of the lead paragraph of the articles of their subject, per other basic topic lists, most of which are currently unsourced. Sourcing concerns should go there. Celarnor Talk to me 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If the content is the issue, try tags first; deletion should only be used when nothing else can save it. Anyway, the content is good, useful material, so it should be kept. PeterSymonds | talk 11:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Viewed after User:Celarnor's changes). Perfectly encyclopedic, and I see no evidence of copyright violation in its current form. I also endorse his proposed move. Xymmax (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can tell that a lawyer wrote this, because even the "explanations" aren't in plain English. Even when you make your way through the jargon, I question its accuracy (on the definition of "assault", for instance, I think the intent was to say "imminent" rather than "immediate"). Black's Law Dictionary is somewhat more readable than this. And speaking of dictionaries, do you figure that you don't need sources? Appellate courts were asking for citations long before Wikipedia came along. Mandsford (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move per Celarnor. It'd be fine as a list, although it might do with a trip to WP:WICU. (Maybe tag with 'requires expert attention'?) In any event, AfD isn't the place to deal with cleanup issues Bfigura (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2008 (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.