Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officious intermeddler

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. John254 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officious intermeddler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article offers nothing beyond a definition. Has been transwikied to Wiktionary and thus this article should be deleted. Asing89 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This stub begins at the beginning, defining a legal term. It is sourced to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which suggests that it is indeed susceptible of expansion, and there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to be a fairly basic concept in contract law. Needs expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a perfectly good legal stub. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A dictionary definition wouldn't offer any information about the state of the law, or doctors' transaction costs. The article should however clarify which legal jurisdiction(s) it is talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 20 February 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.