Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One transaction rule

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=One transaction rule}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=One transaction rule}})

WP:DICDEF that really can simply be mentioned in Australian legal system. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to a reasonable target, with a smerge of the single citation. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Merge into Sentence (law) to expand on concurrent/consecutive sentences. Otherwise just stands as a WP:DICDEF // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 16:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per others, although I'm not convinced of either of the targets suggested so far. Sentence (law) doesn't mention Australian law at all so I think mentioning this somewhat obscure Australian sentencing principle would be fairly out of place. Australian legal system is a much more high-level overview of the framework and origins of Australia's legal system and barely mentions criminal law. Ideally this would redirect to the article Criminal sentencing in Australia (similar to articles like Criminal sentencing in the United States and Sentencing in England and Wales), but that article does not yet exist. So I think the best place for this information for now would probably instead be Criminal law of Australia. MCE89 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I got ahead of myself with my merge target suggestion. As far as I can tell, a similar rule to this one applies in multiple legal systems, including Criminal sentencing in the United States, but isn't really expanded on there or in Sentence (law), so I'd hoped that this article could provide a launching point for describing this common rule. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 10:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)