Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littoral rights

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. WP:SNOW keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Littoral rights

[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)

This is more a dictionary definition than notable article in accordance with WP:GNG. Only source points to a dictionary, and is almost like an article on definition of Apple sourcing Webster dictionary PenulisHantu (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A Google Scholar search gets more than 500 hits for "littoral rights", and the first page of results turns up several articles that have the term in their title and appear to be primarily about the topic, so there is definitely room for an encyclopedic article on the topic. BD2412 T 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is certainly encyclopaedic although the current article is little more than a definition. Not my area so I won’t try to expand it but there are plenty of sources if anyone wants to do so. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a legal term of some significance, often paired with riparian water rights, and that's the littoral truth. Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is certainly notable but the article needs to read beyond just a definition. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs work but the subject is notable. Alex-h (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per BD2412 and Clarityfiend. Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. This is a notable legal concept, akin to riparian rights although distinct. 16:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BEFORE and common sense. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh lord.. this is a WP:PILEON WP:SNOW Wm335td (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's snowing in AFD land. It is a WP:PILEON WP:SNOW Certainly article can and should be improved. Speaking as a lawyer, this is one of the clearest cases of a poorly thought out and considered WP:AFD. WP:Notability WP:GNG WP:BEFORE. If you bothered to click on any of the links for searches at the top of this page, you should have known this is silly. What a waste of valuable editor time! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:25, 28 January 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.