Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearing (law)

Hearing (law) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke 19:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dictdef. Was listed for speedy deletion but wasn't a candidate AIUI. — Gwalla | Talk 02:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

D Nothing hew here that isn't common sense. It's like the technical definition of a keyboard is "an input device containing buttons, or keys, for input of data." -- the common-sense meaning is no different. Chris 02:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There are 13 links to this article. ~~I'm going to vote delete unless expanded, but I hope to be able to expand it by the end of the VFD period, in which case I will change my vote to keep.~~ Now it's three sentences long. I think it's a barebones stub which can be kept. anthony 警告
- I can't help thinking that it would be embarassing for you to vote delete on an article I (generally a deletionist) am voting to keep ;) --Improv 17:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, I did fully intend to change my delete to a keep before the VfD ended. But the fact that you voted keep pushed me to do it that much faster :). anthony 警告 17:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This topic is too notable not to have an article. Mark this as something needing some TLC. --Improv 07:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an obvious keep. If this can't become encyclopedic, I don't know why we're trying to make an encyclopedia. —siro χ o 10:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep in present form because of Anthony's observation that there are links to it. Perfectly good topic, substub is likely to grow, but 134.29.33.38 should have requested the article rather than creating a substub. Certainly keep if expanded. Would be helpful if someone familiar with our legal coverage would do some searching and poking around, as I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is half-decent coverage of this topic in some other article or under some other name. I find searching Wikipedia for content quite difficult; just yesterday I accidentally created an article on Nonlethal weapons because I didn't discover the article Non-lethal force until I had already written five paragraphs. Is this Hearing (law) the right title, by the way? Or Hearing (legal)? Or something else? Any naming-convention mavens here? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P. S. Here's a REAL dictdef, which suggests some avenues for expansion of the article: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

4. Law a. A preliminary examination of an accused person. b. The trial of an equity case. 5. A session, as of an investigatory committee or a grand jury, at which testimony is taken from witnesses.

Weak keep, only because it's an encyclopedic topic with links to it. A great candidate for wp:cotw, though. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needs some cleanup, but is definately encyclopedic. Indrian 17:49, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Besides being an encyclopedic topic, it also provides a much-needed conduit to get from the disamb hearing to the specific types of hearings in the see also list. Of course, it needs work, but so do many articles--wp:cotw is certainly one option. Given the number of articles that link here, I seriously doubt the general topic is covered elsewhere. Niteowlneils 18:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, this is abuse of VfD. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 18:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with that. —siroχo 22:20, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  - Oh, stop it. Just stop it. This was listed for speedy deletion and Gwalla | Talk moved it here so we could all talk about it. And the result is... it's not going to be deleted. It seems to me that you should be giving him an attaboy for that. Maybe we should all introduce ourselves to the person on our right and shake hands and say "hello," or have a group hug, or something like that. I don't insist you join in a big round of applause for the righteous working of Wikiprocess. Just be kind, that's all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Agreed. Gwalla in fact prevented abuse by listing it here. I'm in favor of pointing out VfD abuses myself, but it's rather misplaced in this case. Factitious 08:48, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep It's a gneral topic and should be in a encylopedia... However additional info would be quite a boon --Asmodai 00:05, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep shortness is not a reason to delete; only no reasonable future expansion is. Gadykozma 00:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, expandable, linked. The title feels a bit awkward to me, but that's another matter entirely. Factitious 08:48, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've added a graf about administrative hearings in U.S. law. JamesMLane 08:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing wrong with this article, just needs expansion. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 13:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. same reasoning as above keep votes. Posiduck 03:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Please remember, we aren't all from english speaking countries! Pages like this can help us. --Tmh 10:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep it might be useful to some to know that Hearing law doesn't have anything to do with legislation on audial faculties. Expand. cross reference. cite cases. categorise.Pedant 18:22, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
Keep. There is more info in here than is reasonable to state that it's a candidate for moving to Wiktionary. Incidently, should this be something like Legal hearing? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.