Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation crossing

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I see Andrew Davidson's argument persuasive regarding Parent >> Child article development relationships per WP:SUMMARY. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 15:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation crossing[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)

The article does not meet WP:GNG. The article does not provide encyclopedic content and meets WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I suppose it could be merged into Easement if someone felt strongly about it. // Timothy :: talk 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - discusses a known legal concept in land law. Just because you don't think it is useful doesn't mean it's not - see WP:NOTPAPER. The fact that you can find an alternative to deletion (as per WP:BEFORE which you're required to abide by) suggests that deletion is not appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Deus et lex, I don't find the alternative to merge into Easement a good one. But as I said in the nom, "if someone felt strongly about it" as you may, please do so. If you believe the article should be kept, then don't merge. I don't believe it merits its own stand alone article based on WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING - "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." If there is a consensus against delete, I'm happy to accept it. // Timothy :: talk 01:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a common issue and different jurisdictions will have different approaches to it. The page in question seems to focus on Australia. For some aspects of the British experience, see accommodation bridge. The broad topic is clearly notable and so the various localised splits should be permitted to develop and mature per our editing policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination withdrawn. I'm always willing to reconsider an AfD !vote based on policies/guidelines and I can definitely see Andrew's point above regarding Parent >> Child article development relationships WP:SUMMARY. It's an arguement I've made other places and it's good for the encyclopedia. I didn't see it here for some reason, but I do now. Thanks Andrew. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 19 August 2020 (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.