Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub silentio

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sub silentio

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article also does not contain appropriate references. Unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonhelp2 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) — Anonhelp2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DICDEF, specialized legal term it appears. No sourcing found beyond just saying what it means. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. As a legal concept, this phrase requires more explanation than would ordinarily be provided in a dictionary definition—it is more complex than the sum of its parts. And if it were to be deleted, it would first need to be reconciled with the similar, but evidently misspelled entry sub silencio at Wiktionary, which fails to provide the context and example provided here—dictionary definitions are usually shorter than this article.
The nominator deleted the explanation of the phrase, which seems like a bad way to start the deletion process (removing content that might make the article more likely to survive AfD). Added to which, the rationale given for the nomination—"abuse by IP addresses", is not a valid reason for deletion—and the article history shows plenty of valid edits, most made without IP addresses, although anonymous edits are expressly allowed on Wikipedia. We do not need to delete the article's edit history; there is no policy or reason for doing so, but there are several valid reasons for preserving it, including the work of legitimate editors working to improve the encyclopedia.
And it does not appear that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE or any other procedures related to nominating articles for deletion (including signing the nomination). Articles are not deleted because the references are bad or insufficient, and opinions of a court of law are perfectly "appropriate" sources. If additional sources are needed, the nominator needs to look for them before nominating the article for deletion; we don't delete articles because they need more (or any) sources, but because sources cannot be located with a reasonable attempt to do so—and this article already has a valid source; it looks as though it can't be hard to find more. This is not a valid nomination in any respect. P Aculeius (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There are many legal dictionaries, sites and blogs that provide a definition for the term. I don't see a reason why there would be any confusion with it and 'Sub silencio'. If anything, the explanation here seems a bit confusing compared to the other explanation of the term that has been provided else where. Not only is there no further explanation to expand on what was said, there also nothing indicating where it was gotten from. It provides a very vague explanation with no sourcing and nothing to back up the statement. And a quote from a judgment where they merely stated the term does not provide an explanation of the term. Kalsp (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC) — Kalsp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. There are entire periodical articles about this concept, such as: [1] [2]. The concept seems, in particular, to include stealth overruling: [3]. There is a large body of coverage that goes beyond a mere definition of a phrase. This article is not a presently dictionary definition, as it includes content that goes beyond mere definition of a phrase. This article is capable of being further expanded with content that goes beyond mere definition of a phrase. There is nothing that could be described as "abuse" of IP addresses in the page history, as far as I can see. James500 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500's analysis and the sources he has provided.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~This specific article does not fully explain the point or provide references for what was provided. Neither does the judgment it refers. The previously provided point was taken from an already existing online article with no reference as to where the information was obtained from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonhelp2 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I researched the concept before even reading the article. It seemed patently article-worthy. Loads of legal textbooks and whatnot. Then I read the article and wondered why it didn't give even a basic definition of the idea. So I looked at the edit history and found that it did for 17 years (thanks to Legis (talk · contribs)) until the nominator here got at it. This isn't often the case but this is a speedy keep. Both Anonhelp2 (talk · contribs) and Kalsp (talk · contribs) appear to be mucking us about and abusing AFD for vandalism, and now we have their, or possibly just one person's, mess to clean up. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Uncle G and P Aculeius. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 17:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep As both @James500 and @Uncle G have explained, the article had no problem prior to vandalism. Since bad references is not a valid excuse for deletion, I also see no need to delete this article. Additionally, the argument that this is but a dictionary entry is untrue, as the topic is complicated enough to merit an article explaining it.
Industrial Insect (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2023 (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.