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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lying in wait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Move to Wikitionary. 333-blue 02:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wiktionary already has lie in wait, with almost the same definition. ubiquity (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: OK, now it's a well-documented article about a legal concept, not just a dup of a dictionary entry. It seems useful. --ubiquity (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A rewrite demonstrates that an encyclopedic treatment is possible. —teb728 t c 03:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I re-wrote the article per WP:TNT. The concept of lying in wait has received considerable attention in legal scholarship (see e.g. this article and this article). I'll return to this article over the next few days to expand it further. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Merge somewhere. While an AFD may have not been necessary to rewrite the article less dictionary-esque, this is a very small article. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 04:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• EditorE, being a small article is not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:TOOLITTLE). It just means we need to improve the article with the abundant soures that have been written about this topic. Feel free to lend a helping hand :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say the article should be deleted because it was too little. I said that my vote was a Weak keep or Merge because of how small the small article, not a strong keep. I do forgive your misunderstanding of my comment, though. :) edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 05:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• EditorE, my apologies, my comment was a bit of a knee-jerk response. In retrospect, I realize that I should not have implied that you favored deletion. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to expand this article over the next few days, but considering the growth potential of this article, I still think a standalone article is appropriate (per WP:PAGEDECIDE). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly keep: encyclopedic enough, provides valuable information of the kind that people expect to find on WP—WinTakeAll💬 06:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We allow topics to be freely copied and so deletion is not required to replicate this information elsewhere. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after rewrite, well done Notecardforfree! Crow^Caw 22:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the nom given the state of the article at time of nomination, but Notecardforfree has commendably revised the article to put it into a state worthy of retention. TJRC (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.