Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contorts

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 No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contorts

Contorts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is original research and an apparent neologism. — Elembis (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neo! Hayastan 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Dictionary definition or Neologism, neither of which have a place here. Doesn't even have a source, and I wish good luck to anyone trying to google "contorts" without stumbling across gymnasitc-themed porn. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think a legal type is needed to tell us whether this is (or was) very significant, but it seems to be notable. I found numerous scholarly discussions with well-chosen google terms (contorts+contracts+torts yields 800+). It's well-described here and here. In any case, the claim of original research is incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

At worst, merge to Grant Gilmore, the originator of the term (1974 book). --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not original research, and I was wrong. The article does need sources, but at least it's not a neologism. Thanks for looking it up. — Elembis (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep, and call for peer review. It's very much neologism flavored, and may be legal jargon, but it would be more appropriate (per Dhartung, above) for some legal types to come in and review. --Dennisthe2 04:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep assuming sources are added, as it seems they can be. DGG 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I don't care for some of the formatting choices the author has made, the term is genuinely used among contract scholars. Google "contorts"+"promissory estoppel" to see the legitimacy of the term. Pop Secret 10:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless citations added. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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.