Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 42 Notice

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section 42 Notice[edit]

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

Non-notable legalese PDCook (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be notable, although not enough for an article. When Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is created, maybe some of the content can be merged. snigbrook (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, (mis)uses only primary sources. ~~The bit about peppercorn rent is wrong.~~ BTW, I think the guy who created the article is finding life difficult at present. CWC 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is wrong (unless something has changed recently), some examples:[1][2][3] – I would expect these to be more reliable than a blog. snigbrook (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I was wrong; I've struck out the bad sentences. Thanks, snigbrook. CWC 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable term, although there are some possible sources here. I wish to note that WP is filled with notable legalese, such as 99-year lease. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2009 (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.