Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Intention and Common Object

Common Intention and Common Object

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article does not treat the topic in an encyclopedic way, see WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, specifically WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Wikipedia is not meant to simply publish the text of a law without any context or, as seems to be the case here, a very flawed translation of a law from another language. The topic may be notable, but can only be treated in Wikipedia if enough secondary sources exist about the topic. The only source that was ever used to create this article was a blog and the reference has since been removed from the article. No secondary sources, no encyclopedic article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Pakistan. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is notable in the context of Indian and Pakistani law. References are available. I have added some. The article should be rewritten in an encyclopedic way.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pakistan Penal Code. WP:INDISCRIMINATE! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Saqib unless it can be shown these two concepts should be covered together for some reason. To have an article about two legal concepts together is arbitrary, even if they are related, and just asking for the article to become a seldom-edited POV fork. We don't have Probable cause and due process, they're both important concepts but analyzing them both together is what you do in an an essay, not an encyclopedic article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Inchoate offense, of which this is a theory. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]