Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverse inference
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus, leaning to keep with the nominator's withdrawal (but that's irrelevant, the result is still that the article remains). Daniel 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adverse inference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Simple legal dicdef. I could copy all of my Blacks Law dictionary into wiki and see what sticks, but there's nothing particularly notable or unusual about adverse inference (it's exactly what it sounds like) to warrant an article on the phrase. superβεεcat 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was planning on adding more as I study the topic. I don't agree that it's just a definition to the layperson (no doubt it is to someone versed in the law). I'm a layperson interested in this topic and I am interested in discussion, history, interpretation, application, and context of it. I do NOT, however, recommend that you copy in the contents of a dictionary. That would violate copyright law and also be a sure way to add many trivial articles. I'm sure you agree that there are some concepts or phrases that appear in a legal dictionary and also properly appear in Wikipedia. NuclearWinner 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would never copy a copyright text, I was making an analogy. My point was that any legal phrase found in (as an example) Black's is still a dicdef (or jargon), and unless the concept has particular notability, I doubt it is appropriate for an article. Adverse inference is a fairly straightforward concept. I'd like to see how this AfD pans out. If others agree with me and it is deleted, I'm perfectly open to recreation with notability established. - superβεεcat 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, possibly merge into a larger article on legal inference. -- The Anome 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. What's the notability of this topic? It's just a definition of a legal term. put it in wiktionary. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for curiousity's sake. Give it a chance to breathe (it was just created today). Are there notable cases where "adverse inference" won or lost the case? I'm also "lay" in this area, but the concept, although straightforward to someone with a law background, seems fascinating to me. Research quickly NuclearWinner! Be bold! If you add nothing, that would be an ironic instance of adverse inference...we need evidence! Keeper | 76 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure such an overbroad concept as "legal inference" exists. The word "inference" bears the same definition in the legal context as the lay context, that is, logic applied to prove something indirectly. There are a variety of presumptions (such as that of innocence) which may be appropriate for an article, but inference is fairly straightforward. Particular rules of construction which lead to inferences may be noteworthy, but that's yet another topic. I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong! - superβεεcat 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would information such as how this concept was established + notable court cases that hinged around this topic be encyclopedic? I am not sure how crucial this is the the concept of law but I could see it expanded using those two guidelines as a basis. Spryde 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UT
- Comment I suppose it's not impossible, but it's difficult if not impossible to determine the effect of an adverse inference after a trial. An adverse inference occurs when one party fails to produce some evidence or a witness and the fact-finder is either allowed or not allowed to take into consideration that fact. The inference drawn would be akin to "Oh Joe didn't produce the gun... he must have KNOWN his fingerprints were on it. GUILTY!" Because we usually don't see into the minds of the deliberating jury (or judge), we don't really know what effect an adverse inference has / doesn't have. Whew. All of that said - I suppose if some appropriate notable material were produced as well as a history, not the dicdef as it stands, I would... (gasp) change my mind! - superβεεcat 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can think of lots of cases where we are told whether an adverse inference is drawn; where a judge sits alone he acts as trier of fact and states his inferences in his reasons. Legal terms are not like definitions because notable cases often turn on their application and they can be compared across jurisdictions (i.e. can you draw an adverse inference from the failure of an accused to take the stand in New Zealand? In France? In Canada?). I think until we see how it turns out it's probably safest to keep.--Markdsgraham 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose it's not impossible, but it's difficult if not impossible to determine the effect of an adverse inference after a trial. An adverse inference occurs when one party fails to produce some evidence or a witness and the fact-finder is either allowed or not allowed to take into consideration that fact. The inference drawn would be akin to "Oh Joe didn't produce the gun... he must have KNOWN his fingerprints were on it. GUILTY!" Because we usually don't see into the minds of the deliberating jury (or judge), we don't really know what effect an adverse inference has / doesn't have. Whew. All of that said - I suppose if some appropriate notable material were produced as well as a history, not the dicdef as it stands, I would... (gasp) change my mind! - superβεεcat 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would information such as how this concept was established + notable court cases that hinged around this topic be encyclopedic? I am not sure how crucial this is the the concept of law but I could see it expanded using those two guidelines as a basis. Spryde 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UT
- Comment I'm not sure such an overbroad concept as "legal inference" exists. The word "inference" bears the same definition in the legal context as the lay context, that is, logic applied to prove something indirectly. There are a variety of presumptions (such as that of innocence) which may be appropriate for an article, but inference is fairly straightforward. Particular rules of construction which lead to inferences may be noteworthy, but that's yet another topic. I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong! - superβεεcat 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW I'm going to withdraw this as nominator and watch it for improvement / notability. I'm still not totally convinced, but enough people seem to find this interesting, and as a JD myself, I wouldn't want to keep interested persons from learning about this (apparently) interesting legal concept. Cheers! - superβεεcat 22:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.