Deletion of Occupation crossing

Comment: Nomination withdrawn. I'm always willing to reconsider an AfD !vote based on policies/guidelines and I can definitely see {{u|Andrew Davidson|Andrew}}'s point above regarding Parent >> Child article development relationships . It's an arguement I've made other places and it's good for the encyclopedia. I didn't see it here for some reason, but I do now. Thanks Andrew. &nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: This is clearly a common issue and different jurisdictions will have different approaches to it.  The page in question seems to focus on Australia.  For some aspects of the British experience, see accommodation bridge.  The broad topic is clearly notable and so the various localised splits should be permitted to develop and mature per our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: discusses a known legal concept in land law. Just because you don't think it is useful doesn't mean it's not - see . The fact that you can find an alternative to deletion (as per  which you're required to abide by) suggests that deletion is not appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:BEFORE)