Talk:Legal financing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Redundant with existing topic[edit]

Litigation funding appears to describe an identical concept. Saligron 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

May 2011 -- spam content and links[edit]

Spam content and links continue to be reinserted and reverted. Non-notable and blatant commercial websites and self-serving "associations" do not meet WP:EL or WP:RS; source content to legitimate, independent news reporting meeting WP:RS, and discuss edits here first. Flowanda | Talk 08:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The association part is not mine, so I removed it, it did look like spam. However, all other links are verified by myself, an attorney barred in PA and NJ, as well as by existing public documents and case law that I reference on my website.

--Schytzophrenic (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It still partly looks like an advertisement for the phenomena. Could be rewritten. --82.131.110.10 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

It seems that Litigation Funding (UK) and Legal financing cover the same ground. Since articles are about things and not terms, having two articles about the same thing is a form of content forkery. It also appears, by the edit history of the redirect litigation funding that this merger has already taken place in the past. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Litigation Funding (UK) page been greatly expanded over the almost 4 years since this merge proposal was last discussed. Given this (referenced) expansion the proposal to merge no longer seems tenable, as it discussed UK-specific law that would unduly swamp the target. Therefore I'll remove the merge tag; if there was interest in a merge, perhaps a new discussion could be started.Klbrain (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This proposal has been renewed:

I'm also proposing again that the Litigation funding article (mentioned five years ago as being a UK-specific article) be merged as well. They are on the exact same topic, and being a worldwide project we generally do not silo our topics according to how they apply to different countries. Although a "litigation funding in the United Kingdom" article would be technically possible, there is so much overlap with this one, and the content of that article is so much poorer, that I think it would be better to simply port any useful information from that article to be a subsection here. It would take a fair amount of work, but I don't think it would be controversial … I think anyone who feels up to the task should just be bold and do it. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that the proposed merger is appropriate. Arllaw (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There were no objections to merger, so the merger will be completed. Arllaw (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The article Pre-settlement_funding has little content and is duplicative of this article. Arllaw (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm also proposing again that the Litigation funding article (mentioned five years ago as being a UK-specific article) be merged as well. They are on the exact same topic, and being a worldwide project we generally do not silo our topics according to how they apply to different countries. Although a "litigation funding in the United Kingdom" article would be technically possible, there is so much overlap with this one, and the content of that article is so much poorer, that I think it would be better to simply port any useful information from that article to be a subsection here. It would take a fair amount of work, but I don't think it would be controversial … I think anyone who feels up to the task should just be bold and do it. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.