Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eo nomine


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Eo nomine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is not even worthy of being called a stub. What should be the article's Introduction is really the entire article. The only other part of the article is a single external link. A definition for this Latin phrase belongs in the Wikitionary, but not every Latin phrase deserves its own article in Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant amount of secondary source coverage. Could be fodder for a good quality improvement project for WP:LAW. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not just add the material in this article to a related article? SMP0328. (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. For the reasons provided above. SMP0328. (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep While the specific info currently included could perhaps be merged to Sovereign immunity, the term has broader applicability, as in the context of prejudgement interest. See, e.g. "Interest Eo Nomine versus Interest as Damages".  24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a stub article about a legal concept, not a phrase, for which the nominator gives a reason for expansion, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the rationale of Phil Bridger above. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Generally, we have kept all legal terms, unless they can be merged properly somewhere, or are so obscure that we can't find any modern sources. Since neither exception applies, then it should be kept. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2013 (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.