Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acting (law)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Acting (law)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has no sources and honestly isn't encyclopedic - it's more suited for Wikitionary. It also assumes that "acting" exclusively refers to legal contexts (acting prime minister etc), where it could actually also refer to business - acting CEO etc ItsPugle (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per this massive article in one of the most prominent US law reviews:
 * See also:
 * Agree that this article is in quite poor shape, but that's not in itself a reason for deletion. As for the fact that it doesn't address "acting" status in other contexts, I would note that the title is "Acting (law)", so the article is restricted by its terms to discussion of the legal context—which is a distinctive and noteworthy context in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that this article is in quite poor shape, but that's not in itself a reason for deletion. As for the fact that it doesn't address "acting" status in other contexts, I would note that the title is "Acting (law)", so the article is restricted by its terms to discussion of the legal context—which is a distinctive and noteworthy context in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that this article is in quite poor shape, but that's not in itself a reason for deletion. As for the fact that it doesn't address "acting" status in other contexts, I would note that the title is "Acting (law)", so the article is restricted by its terms to discussion of the legal context—which is a distinctive and noteworthy context in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that this article is in quite poor shape, but that's not in itself a reason for deletion. As for the fact that it doesn't address "acting" status in other contexts, I would note that the title is "Acting (law)", so the article is restricted by its terms to discussion of the legal context—which is a distinctive and noteworthy context in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that this article is in quite poor shape, but that's not in itself a reason for deletion. As for the fact that it doesn't address "acting" status in other contexts, I would note that the title is "Acting (law)", so the article is restricted by its terms to discussion of the legal context—which is a distinctive and noteworthy context in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Completely pointless dicdef. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 04:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  03:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: It's true that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but "acting" positions in politics are pretty common and, per Aleatory's sources, is independently covered. HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: All very interesting but this is a definition, pure and simple, and has no place here. asnac (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you use the sources such as the ones brought up by Aleatory, it'll be far more than just a definition article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this is merely a dictionary definition; the article attempts to describe/explain a concept (currently a legal one, but this could/should be expanded to operational etc. areas), or at least has the potential to be developed in that direction. And adding the sources mentioned by AleatoryPonderings could take care of the other problem, of being unreferenced. All in all, quite a useful little article IMO, and it would be a pity to get rid of it just because it ATM may be borderline dictionary-ish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per, this is a notable topic and a proper version of the article would have a lot more than just a dictionary definition. Umimmak (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination reflects a misapprehension that an "acting" CEO or the like is not covered by this article, but the legal sense of "acting" covers all positions for which a person can have "acting" authority. BD2412  T 02:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added some content. BD2412  T 04:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As have I—hopefully these contribs address some of the concerns raised above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEYMAN and WP:GNG. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and AleatoryPondering's improvements. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2020 (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.