Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condition subsequent

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condition subsequent[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Said question clearly not even attempted to be answered by you before you just off-loaded your work onto other editors, because Google Books took me straight to Josiah William Smith's discussion of this in xyr A Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property. You have thrown a whole bunch of zero-research nominations at AFD today, making others do the work for you that you should do yourself before nominating things for deletion on grounds of notability. The "fix" part of Wikipedia:find and fix a stub has always been important. Please actually do that bit yourself if you find a poor stub. Research your AFD nominations. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictioary. This article as written belongs in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should not speedy keep this article. We need to consider it on the metis. What we need to determine is if this is an important enough concept in law to merit an article. I know some about law, but not the highly technical side, more the procedural court side. I do not know where to start looking, but we should not knee jerk keep articles without sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Literally the first page of Google results gave me seven high-quality sources, which I added to the article with appropriate inline citations. This is a clearly notable subject, about which plenty of information exists everywhere about us: si quaeris codex amoenam, circumspice. jp×g 23:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- codicem, certe? Uncle G (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G: Reparavi. jp×g 04:34, 20 April 2021 (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.