Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immediately (law)

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 merge‎ to Glossary of law. Reasonable time was also suggested as a merge target but did not win as much support. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately (law)[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)

a bunch of unsourced articles that rather blatantly violate the fact that wikipedia is not a dictionary.

bundled afd:

lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Glossary of law. More relevant to Wiktionary than here; blatant WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this entry documents a contested legal term of art, it does not provide a definition of the term. Definitions are what Wiktionary is for; this article has a fundamentally different basis. Jack4576 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant content to Reasonable time and Glossary of law without prejudice or keep Immediately (law). This legal concept satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There is a very large amount of coverage in books: [1] [2] [3]. This concept is very often the same thing as reasonable time, and is typically the same thing in English law. The content of this article is about case law on statutory interpretation (and the similar interpretation of other legal instruments such as contracts) and is not a lexicographer's dictionary definition. In any event, an article on this legal concept is capable of being expanded far beyond a definition. The article is entirely referenced to encyclopedias and law reports from start to finish. Certain content in the section of the article headed "Compounds" might be merged to the glossary on grounds, in particular, that it appears that it may be glossary material, and include multiple glossary entries for separate terms. James500 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
an article on this legal concept is capable of being expanded far beyond a definition

and it hasn't been done since 2009. just delete the junk. start over, if so inclined. lettherebedarklight 晚安 00:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the reasons provided by James500 Jack4576 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reasonable time by WP:NOTDICT Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of law per above. NOTDICT applies. If there is a consensus for a different merge / redirect target, I have no objection; in this case I think a merge into the glossary with related terms wikilinked makes the most sense. // Timothy :: talk 05:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:25, 24 May 2023 (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.