Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errors of due process

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 of the debate was Delete. This is too small an idea to stand by itself. No notability for the term outside this book was offered. Will userify on request so it can be merged with the book article. (once the book moves from "nearly notable" to "notable" ...) --++Lar: t/c 05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research and is based on passages of book authored by the editor who created the article – possible self-promotion. The term is possibly a neologism, although legal lingo may be different in the United States (usually the term "error of law" is used in relation to appeals, not "errors of due process". Originally had a {{prod}} tag, but it was removed without explanation. Agent 86 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Certaintly article created by author of book -- published by Cambridge University Press, hardly a vanity outfit! If this phrase is in use in discussions of law, we should have an article on it. Sdedeo (tips) 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and per "Errors of justice" above. Tevildo 23:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not exactly a neologism, as the book, itself is nearly notable, but the definition is clearly not standard. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2006 (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.