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. Going to go with keep for now - please discuss merges and redirects on the appropriate talk pages. Thank you! Missvain ( talk) 01:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Individual capacity

Individual capacity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

The article contains no sources and seems to be a mere dictionary definition. Noahfgodard ( talk) 00:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Transwiki to Wikitionary. Foxnpichu ( talk) 17:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep I am not sure what the bar is here, but it is in 'Category:Legal terminology stubs' google finds lots of relevant hits. What makes the subject of this article not appropriate for wikipedia but leaves everything else in 'Category:Legal terminology stubs' where it is? Jeepday ( talk) 19:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to natural person, as a case of that concept. BD2412 T 04:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to natural person: per WP:MERGEREASON#2; individual capacity just a term for status as a natural person. Transwiki to wikt:Individual capacity is also a reasonable option. — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 21:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a stub about a legal concept not a dictionary definition. See WP:DICDEF which explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent."

The page should not be merged with natural person because that is a different legal concept. Merger would tend to cause confusion and invite improper synthesis.

Andrew🐉( talk) 10:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to natural person. There is nothing sourced to merge, and I could find no good secondary sources in a search to back up anything this article says. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Andrew Davidson. -- BDD ( talk) 17:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Andrew Davidson. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge - it's used sometimes in appellate cases, but without context, this stub won't make sense. Bearian ( talk) 22:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• I have a bad feeling this AfD is going to close as No Consensus... Foxnpichu ( talk) 23:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  It happens! I think it's tricky because while this is a discrete legal concept, the legal concept itself is pretty much a dicdef. That is, it's not the sort of term of art that means something very different from the usual meaning of its words (cf. Legal person). So I'm sympathetic to the idea that the article isn't very valuable right now, but I think its value will become apparent with expansion. -- BDD ( talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  I mean, No Consensus is basically just Keep with another term, so there is that. Foxnpichu ( talk) 17:12, 21 December 2020 (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.