Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De facto

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 of the debate was keep. I seem to be smelling something, but never mind.... - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De facto

"De facto" is not in itself an encyclopedic concept, but merely an adjective/adverb that describes an unofficially recognized state of affairs. In no way does the article discuss anything other than etymology and language usage. That means it's a dictionary definition, although somewhat expanded. The article has no encyclopedic content and even if I'm sure plenty more usage notes can be added, it clearly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Peter ^Isotalo 10:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; this is much more informative than a dicdef. There are many articles about Latin phrases - ad hoc, ad interim, ad nauseam, in situ, de jure, ipso facto, mea culpa, prima facie etc. David Sneek 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It contains etymology and examples of what it means in actual language usage. The bread and butter of any wiktionary entry. How does that make it more informative than a dicdef except that it has more examples and prose? And could we just for once have an AfD discussion about the merits of an article concept per se, not the de facto (!) presence of X number of similar articles? It's not an intellectually honest way of conducting a discussion. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The presence of many similar entries is relevant because it tells us something about what the wikipedia consensus about such articles has been until now. AfD discussions do not take place in a vacuum. And even if it is was not relevant, to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty for mentioning them is silly. David Sneek 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You're avoiding the relevant issue. How is it more informative than a dicdef other than having more examples and prose? / Peter ^Isotalo 18:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Keep, nice informative article.Crypticfirefly 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment: I think part of the trouble is that the dictionary and encyclopedia are too separate. It is too difficult for people to link from one to another, and each must be searched seperately. But that won't be solved here or anytime soon . . . Crypticfirefly 01:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well done. george 15:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article, good topic. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just because the article is long doesn't mean it rises above being a dictionary definition. Copy some of these examples to Wiktionary if they're so valuable, though I think they're self explanatory. GT 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep it is basically a dictdef, but I don't see the harm in keeping it. Kotepho 18:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not just basically a dicdef, it is a dicdef. The wiktionaries don't get that much attention and keeping their articles here isn't helping anyone. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- It's much, much more than a mere dicdef. It's an extensive, informative and well thought out article and belongs here. The El Reyko 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Did you actually read the article? It's actually just a definition then example after example ad nauseum, as if we didn't get the point after the first 20 de facto ______'s. Other Latin phrases deserve encyclopedia entries because they represent important legal concepts. This however has no potential to ever be anything other than what it is now -- a definition then a useless list of everything the writer(s) can think of to put after the phrase. GT 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• 'Merge.' Since de jure and de facto seem to talk about each other, why not merge them into one useful article? SigPig 08:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because when something's "de jure" it can't be considered "de facto" and vice versa. "De facto" has a much wider area of usage and can be applied from national politics to descriptions of family affairs. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I know they are opposite terms. What I meant to say was, if you look at both articles, each uses the other as a point of reference. I merely suggested that if they were, in jurisprudence, opposites, like, say, guilty or not guilty, maybe they could be merged as "de jure and de facto" or some such. But, I guess, as you stated, that is not the case. So if this gets deleted, will there be an AfD nom for de jure? SigPig 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sigh. No, because there will always be people to vote to keep with motivations they can't defend. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Something like 800 articles link to this article. It is necessary and explains the concept in an encyclopedic way. Jokestress 05:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep De facto important article. --MaNeMeBasat 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because ... ? We do have a Wiktionary you know, which exists to explain what words and phrases mean. GT 08:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although it would be more useful to refer to prime examples of de facto governance and an emphasis on the Wikitionary article. mxdxcxnx _{T C} 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Enough with technicalities. Bottom line, it provides useful information. I'd call it a stub or in need of cleanup; not worthy of deletion. Sean Hayford O'Leary 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: worthy of own article space. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep:It helped me be sure I understood the meaning. With the speed and ease of electronics over books, whats wrong with combining an encyclopedia and a dictionary? Maybe with books, it was desirable to have only one volume for all entries when one wanted a dictionary, but electronic access is free of weight and size restrictions. I see no problem with a comprehensive entry, especially when the quick answer was at the top.Tom thoreau 00:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Useful article, helped me understand the term. Etcetera exists. Ad nauseam exists. Why shouldn't this one, as long as it's helpful? Arrenlex 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The article is very helpful, and contains things that should be seperate from what would be in the dictionary, and has the possibility to contain more that is not just related to the definition. It's easier to find in the Encyclopedia, especially for people looking for more than just a definition. Iwanttobeasleep 1:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep: How this even got to a VOTE I don't know. --Mboverload 09:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep: Now that I see it, me neither. Maybe it could be deleted if the Wiktionary entry has as much data, but I bet it doesn't. I can think of countless articles that are less useful than this and no one threatens their survival. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep:what do you gain from losing this article.

Strong Keep!!! Only those out to decieve and control will persist in deleting such valuable revealing info!!!

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.