Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good cause


 * 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. DS (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good cause
This was tagged as db-nocontext, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit in that criterion. However, I'm also unsure as to the notability of the term. I am neutral on the subject; this is a procedural nomination. Keilana talk(recall) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a general legal term in active circulation, so I believe it can be subject to an encyclopedia article. Thank you! --Smithbrenon (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a widely-used rationale in judicial decisions. This is a stub, not a dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article in question is on a notable legal term. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The term is apparently legitimate and notable; I've tagged it as a US legal stub accordingly. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What are we doing deleting this? Per above. Sean MD80 talk 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid encyclopedic subject.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 03:18, 5 January 2008 (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.