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. The article is a stub, but--per keep arguments--references exist to establish notability and this does not fall under WP:NEO. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise law (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)

Per WP:NEO. There is no proof this is a common term. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KEEP There are entire books on this subject. Click on books. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the moment. Per all those books David Tornheim points to, it's a common term, a significant category of law, and a notable subject by Wikipedia standards. If this article never develops beyond the few sentences that are there now, I could imagine ultimately redirecting it to a similar topic like companies law, but this topic is (at least potentially) not quite the same thing and for the moment, I think the appropriate course would be to keep this for at least 6-12 months and let it develop (or not). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's real problem with law related articles (except cases). I can give you a list on important topics with few references. I think attorneys are too busy to edit wikipedia and don't rely on it--not even law students. it's a really weak spot for wikipedia IMHO. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject is a branch of law and intrinsically notable. The article should be expanded and improved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Per WP:NNC, notability is not associated with the quality of an article. There are whole books from major publishers on the subject - it is clearly of legal notability. [1] Books have even been written on specific time periods within the subject ([2]) - a testimony to how in-depth coverage does go. [Contribution made by TheMagikCow 13:13, 4 March 2017]
• Speedy keep. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nom, as succinctly noted by User:David Tornheim. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Corporate law as this appears to be a fork and they cover the same topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obvs notable DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2017 (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.