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 no consensus to delete. Merging could still be considered, but some arguments against it were made that should be considered. W.marsh 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This term is nto in widespread use, and much of that use is actually not as discussed. The reference link does not support the content. A few reliabel sources discuss it, but usually in editorials as informal usage, not in main content. I don't see a proper scholarly discussion of the term. Main use seems to be bloggers-after-truth, trying to get one over on The Man and failing, representing the results as legal terrorism. It is, needless to say, a grossly POV term. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is entirely POV. Nick mallory 11:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on the terms reference in legal case. Article definitely needs more backing Guycalledryan 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to Vexatious litigation. It seems to describe the same phenomonon. Chunky Rice 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Include the information in Vexatious litigation as suggested by Chunky Rice and leave as a redirect. --Nehrams2020 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Nehrams2020. It has been used in official legal sources, and does seem to be another name for the same concept, so should probably be mentioned on that page. JulesH 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Also, the term legal terrorism may be a more popular and informal than Vexatious litigation. Explain (and avoid) jargon per WP:JARGON. User:Krator (t c) 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly less formal, but I don't see any indication that it's more popular.Chunky Rice 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight merge per above, but redirect to State terrorism, which I assumed at first this was about. Sandstein 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - I'm sorry, but in reading this article, I think it is on a topic specific to India, using language specific to India, and therefore should not be merged into Vexatious litigation - or into SLAPP or Chilling effect, as a box in the article itself suggests. Merging into one of these will separate it from other articles about Indian law - such as 498a, which it references; and will bury it within articles centred around other nations' legal systems, where any refernce to the phenomenon in India will be lost. However, it's still a very stublike article and should be marked as a stub for further improvement. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: I deleted the box for mergeto:Chilling effect, as whatever outcome from this AfD should change that. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, there's no reason not to merge, really. The legal concept is the same. Take a look at Murder. We don't need separate articles on how each country deals with the concept and what they call it. We have one article that discusses the concept and how it is applied in different countries.Chunky Rice 22:17, 21 May 2007 (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.