Talk:Admissible evidence
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Undated comment[edit]
This article is written solely from a contemporary U.S. law perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barzelay (talk • contribs)
Can someone propose a merger of this article into Evidence (law)?[edit]
Evidence (law) is a much better and more complete article that seems to cover the same ground originally intended for this article. I would pursue the merger myself, but I do not have the time or energy to follow it up, so I would encourage someone else with more dedication to do so :)
72.205.55.200 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC) okey odkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.32.160 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose such a merger. It would be better to expand this article then to merge it into a much broader subject. The law of evidence also covers, for example, burdens of production and persuasion, which are a separate issue from admissibility. bd2412 T 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello 72.205.55.200, 99.188.32.160 T -- I tried again today to PROD this article: "This article is an unnecessary FORK from Evidence, which covers the topic, save the case citations." It was quickly reverted, as an "obviously notable subtopic." I'll toss this effort into the pile of Articles from 2007 so plainly self-evident that they are exempt from WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
wikipedia policy on "sharing material on talk page"[edit]
The policy is for future re-working of article (building an encyclopedia), yet may be deemed inadmissable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.231.95 (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)