Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ipso facto

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 21:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ipso facto[edit]

Strong keep.

Transwikify Massysett 03:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per nominator. --Idont Havaname 04:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if some of the notable uses of this phrase are added between now and the end of this Afd term. I can imagine this could be expanded into a nice article but as it now stands it should be transwikified. Qaz ^(talk) 06:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand if possible as per Qaz. If not possible, do a soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- Kjkolb 10:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. notable phrase, definitely could be expanded. I don't support a time limit on this expansion though, as Qaz suggests.--Kewp (t) 14:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable legal and lay with much room for expansion. Xoloz 14:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep for above reasons. Smerdis of Tlön 16:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as notable legal term. Capitalistroadster 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep this please this is a legal term used all the time erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 00:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this is a very notable term. It is far longer than a dictionary definition, and has potential for expansion. [[Sam Korn]] 21:43, 12 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.