Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conflict of contract laws


 * 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The result was keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ with a side of nomination withdrawn, however consensus is also clear Star   Mississippi  22:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of contract laws

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)


 * Delete This article is a mess and contains huge swaths of unverified content. Seems to violate WP:NOTESSAY and I believe it would be best to WP:TNT. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Tooncool64 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Outside of what? Contract laws??? Tooncool64 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Outside of the topic of "unreferenced wikipedia articles" (and, to a lesser extent, unreferenced content within largely or allegedly unreferenced articles). As I explained in my edit summary, the contributions of your account consist more or less entirely of a 'campaign' against uncited articles. Your account is also a WP:SLEEPER with no edits for roughly five years, then a massive spike of edits over the Christmas holidays (when most editors were away), that consists entirely of this 'campaign' of PRODs, AfDs, RfCs etc. on unreferenced articles. James500 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. In fact, I find your insinuation that I am a bad faith actor insulting. Tooncool64 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason we have Template:Single-purpose account is because it is relevant to AfD discussions. Further, I have not insinuated anthing. James500 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The template usage page specifically states that it should be used in cases of suspected sockpuppetry. Also, if you look at my contributions, I have contributed much more than just nominating articles for deletion. Tooncool64 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly what the template says. It roughly loosely says that it should be used if there are sufficient grounds for concern, and in my provisional opinion, the fact that an WP:SPA is also a WP:SLEEPER constitutes sufficient grounds. Yes, I can see that you have been adding sources etc to unreferenced articles, but that is still editing within the single narrow topic of the "unreferenced articles backlog". If you don't like the template, the simplest thing to do would be for you to diversify your editing. There are lots of things that you can do on this project that don't relate to the "unreferenced articles backlog". James500 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: no evidence whatsoever of WP:BEFORE. Here is a paper from a law journal I found after literally five seconds of a Google search for the article's name. Here's a book: "Eugene F. Scoles and Peter Hay, Hornbook on Conflict of Laws, West Group (2004)". Is there a reason these aren't viable? jp×g🗯️ 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The paper you have found does not seem to mention the concept of "Conflict of contract laws". While the concept of "Conflict of laws" has implications on "contracts" and "contract law" (this is why there is a section titled "Contracts" in our article "Conflict of laws"), I am not familiar with the concept "Conflict of contract laws" as such. It might be that the phrases "Conflict of laws" and "Conflict of contract laws" are quasi-synonymous. I have some sympathy for Tooncool64's proposal to WP:TNT the article, in the absence of any source. In my view, in this specific instance, a sensible way forward would be to improve and expand the section "Contracts" in our article "Conflict of laws", rather than trying to convert a rather long personal essay containing no reference into a proper Wikipedia article. Edcolins (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. This concept satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. It has received significant coverage in many books and periodicals, and there are many entire periodical articles and entire book chapters about it. The expression "conflict of contract laws" does actually appear in numerous books and periodical articles in Google Books and elsewhere, but the expression is entirely synonymous with the chapter on "contract" that appears in every book on conflict of laws (aka private international law), and with that branch of the law of conflict of laws. Any attempt to deny this would violate NOTDICTIONARY, because we don't treat a single topic as multiple topics just because the single topic has multiple names. It may be that the present page name is not the WP:COMMONNAME of this concept, and the page should be moved. This topic has numerous names, such as: conflict of contract laws; conflict of laws in contract; conflict of laws of contract; conflict of laws: contract; conflict of laws and contract; contract in conflict of laws; contract in the conflict of laws; contract and conflict of laws; contract and the conflict of laws; and so on ad nauseum. They are all the same thing. They are not separate topics. There is no indication that the article is a mess, and David91 was not, as far as I can remember, in the habit of writing essays, or huge swaths of unverifiable content. He did make a few mistakes (I should know, because I have corrected some of them over the years), but it was very obvious that he always got his information from law books, and that most of it was reasonably accurate. Further the article is not actually unreferenced or unverified at all. The article cites four sources including one Act of Parliament and three international treaties, all of which are reliable sources. WP:TNT is not applicable, and the deletion of the main article on any broad area of the law would completely disrupt that entire area of the project and would be disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive. James500 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is now referenced to seven treatises and a periodical article. There are many other sources available. James500 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my nomination per information above. I made a mistake in not doing enough research. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2024 (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.