Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v Smith (1900)


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit  11:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

R v Smith (1900)

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

Lacking sources, not likely to ever be expanded beyond what it is currently, and would be best off merged with Superior orders. Mako001 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:44, 24 November 2021 (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.