Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep pocket
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 KEEP. Postdlf 07:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibily transwiki-ing first. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. —Miles←☎ 03:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. It's a common term, if not a classic in law and economics. Martg76 08:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- recognised portmanteau law term --Simon Cursitor 09:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - notable law term. Capitalistroadster 18:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Methinks it like a Hot pocket Klonimus 06:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow no article on Hot pockets? Klonimus 06:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wasn't really aware that "deep pocket" was a bona fide legal term, and didn't see any possibility for expansion at the time. I'm fine with the revised version staying in Wikipedia. I'd like to point out, though, that "deep pocket" is not a portmanteau ;-) —Miles←☎ 03:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- 'portmanteau' used, in this instance, in its mundane, not its wiki meaning : a word-or-phrase used solo to import a suitcase of reference or implication. To a lawyer, talk of 'deep pockets' is going to include the perjorative aspects of inequity and oppression when one party can afford resources totally out of the reach of the other. --Simon Cursitor 07:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC) [FYI][reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.