Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In mitius

: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 merge to Ex post facto law. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[In mitius]]=

:{{la|In mitius}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|In mitius}})

This is a dictionary definition. It is an orphan, cites no other sources, and the current content of the page is about as much as can be said about the topic. Thus, I see no rationale for keeping this page. Nat682 (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge into ex post facto law which links to this article and requires some explanation of the term. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Merge. Per CW.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

: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.