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 redirect to Dowry law in India. and merge any usable content. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Page seems to be used for advocacy against a dowry law in India rather than for encyclopedic content.

• The term 'legal terrorism' is claimed to be "widely used in India" by the page and while a google search does get some hits they are:

a) all tied to a single issue (WP:NOT#NEWS)
b) none of the sources used or that I found are good enough to be considered reliable. In fact the only book I found with a similar name has nothing to do with this topic[1]

• The page is also home to some original research and is quite starkly written from one point of view.

On these grounds I believe the article fails both the general notability guideline and WP:NOT#NEWS.

This article should either be deleted, or redirected to Frivolous litigation or vexatious litigation, or failing that what is actually notable merged to Dowry law in India--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Since redirect terms don't have to be notable and someone might look for this subject using this search term, it can't hurt to redirect it instead of outright deleting it - but I do agree that it fails the GNG. Kevin (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect as suggested above. The common law has many pleonasms -- redundant lists of synonyms. This is one of a piece with "frivolous, silly, vexacious, and unreasonable lawsuits". There is no need for a separate article on this phrase. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - non-notable neologism. —SW— ^confer 16:27, 30 September 2011 (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.