Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premises


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Premises

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a very confused article. It actually covers three separate topics collected into one conglomeration of an article. It first covers premises in the sense of real property and buildings, for which we already have articles. Then, we have a section on "premises liability", which is a legal topic that should be covered in its own article. Finally, we have "premises registration", which a regulation that has very little to do with premises and much to do with livestock, although as written it consists mainly of an appeal to American citizens to make comments about a particular government action that was expected to occur in January. Powers T 13:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd article. I can't say I've seen an article like this one. It's certainly not encylopedic. Probably a redirect or delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the article has promise, but the title should be changed to "Premises liability" (which is currently a redirect to this page; IMO that's getting it backwards). Delete the "premises registration" stuff and expand the information about premises liability, which is a valid concept in law and worthy of an article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article isn't about one topic but the use of the word "premises". WP:NOT There could be articles lurking within the text but this topic serves no purpose. Eudemis (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep. I am, quite frankly, dismayed that this important legal term was not researched before nomination.  Admittedly, the article is stubby and messy, but it is an obviously notable legal term that should be in an encyclopedia.  This is exactly the sort of topic that a high school or college student would be seeking for here.  Premises liability already redirects here, but I have no problem with re-re-directing it back there. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Three other reasons: the article has been heavily vandalized, it has parallel articles on many other languages' Wikipedias, and has been cleaned up several times previously, for example here. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (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.