Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emblements (2nd nomination)

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. Given the expansion and sourcing undertaken during this AfD, the recommendations to delete aren't referring to the present state of the article. — TKD::Talk 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emblements

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

Tagged for deletion via WP:PROD by User:TexasAndroid despite having passsed AFD as 'keep' in March 2006. Considering this has gone >1 year without improvement, I am inclined to suggest the article should be deleted now that it has been transwiki'd. Merger to an appropriate article would also be a viable option. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, over 1 year without any further exploitation, transwiki is the only solution. @pple 03:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no-brainer. nothing more than a dicdef, already transwikified. Ohconfucius 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef, already transwikied. Oysterguitarist 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is just a stub that begins at the beginning. This does have some potential for expansion. The word is significant in legal history mostly because in earlier days, when land and agricultural litigation occupied more of the legal system's time, there was some controversy as to whether, say, unharvested crops on land foreclosed upon belonged to the mortgage holder or to the tenant. If I find something useful, I may try to expand this. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have slightly expanded the article, and added a couple of references. (They were more recent than what I expected to find!) - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I think this has enough notability to stay as a stub Corpx 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep after expansion. It's no longer a dicdef, and there's probably more to this doctrine than what Ihcoyc has already been so diligent to add. After a year basically untouched, AFD was exactly the kick in the pants this article needed.--Chaser - T 04:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This improvement could have been done by the nominator or the prodder instead. It doesn't need to go to AfD unless people insist on sending for deletion instead of trying to improve articles. DGG (talk) 23:52, 15 August 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.