Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial murder

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judicial murder

Judicial murder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No sources. Also makes a trivial connection between unrelated events. Chick Bowen 18:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, OR. Corvus cornix 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also, violates WP:NPOV. (maybe not). --Evb-wiki 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unreferenced and WP:OR. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:OR. Wawawaaaaan. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unreferenced and OR.--Danaman5 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. No sources, original research and violates WP:SYNTH. --SGT Tex 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've seen and heard the term used many times by opponents of the death penalty. Lack of references is not a reason to delete - get some references. MarkBul 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I just added three references - many more are available. MarkBul 20:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - minor, POV-pushing neologism does not add anything to understanding the subject of capital punishment. Wikidemo 20:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: the sources do not establish notability. The first three merely use the term as a title, which proves nothing other than that the phrase is a used as a title. The last one, a 1901 source, discusses events of those times and does not appear to draw any broader point relevant to the justice system today.Wikidemo 20:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment With respect, you seem to be confused. POV does not refer to the definition or use of the term - it refers to the tone of a Wikipedia article. Many terms are used with a point of view, not all Wikipedia articles using the terms are POV in Wikipedia terms. "Merely" using a term in a title is even more confused - what more do you want for a referece for a term that finding it in book titles and articles by an important social commentator of late 20th century America? And a 1901 book is expected to discuss the issue in terms of 2007? This is not a neologism - it has clearly been used for over 100 years consistantly. MarkBul 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not confused but perhaps I was too brief. Neologisms make weak articles to begin with. Partisan terms that merely rename something so it sounds bad (or euphemistically good) are particularly pointless. This is one of those. Indeed, a term appearing in a headline or title is not a reliable source that the thing described actually exists, or that it's a common term. People coin clever titles all the time to be different, not to be the same. One use proves nothing. To count up how many articles use the term would bey SYN/OR. Just not a good source, particularly if the article body never uses the term. I'm not sure if and where that appears in a guideline but I know I've come across this point around Wikipedia. A similar concern on Template:Afc_neo. I see no 100 years of consecutive use. I see two sources around 1900 and two sources today. Indeed, those old sources do not establish that the word has currency today, and any reference about the state of capital punishment 100 years ago in America has very little bearing on the state of capital punishment today.Wikidemo 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources suggest that the term merits Wikitionary inclusion or something to that effect. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, or at least transwiki; this term may not be in common use now, but it was used quite often - I found a lot of appropriate Google Books hits[1]. --Gwern (contribs) 22:11 14 September 2007 (GMT)
    • Where do you think this original research should be transwikied to? Corvus cornix 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wiktionary has been suggested. --Gwern (contribs) 23:00 14 September 2007 (GMT)
Why would Wiktionary take original research? I think you want Urban Dictionary. Corvus cornix 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Capital Punishment Debate. If you but this in Wiktionary, you better be ready to do the same for many pages linked to the Capital Punishment page. This isn't a dictionary term like "hammer" or "thirsty". It is a term with a history within one of the most contentious issues of our time. And this is not original research - I already added references. You are welcome to add a few on your own. If you refuse to even try to look for references or rewrite the article, then you aren't contributing here. IDONTLIKEIT does not contribute to consensus. MarkBul 23:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. I would ask those defending the article to address whether the various usages of the term are indeed consistent. If not, then there is no encyclopedic subject here, only a long-standing term with a shifting definition, written up here with an expressly political purpose. Chick Bowen 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There may be potential for an article on this, but it must have some connection with the actual uses of the term--the Schiavo advocates are using it in a deliberately misleading sense, and the present article is hopeless POV. Best to start over. DGG (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Schiavo advocates are using it as a logical extention of its use regarding capital punishment. They use it as an extention of government-adjudicated death. Both terms are used as advocacy, just as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are used by advocates of those positions. That's why I said merge it into Capital pusishment debate. The term is used in that debate. Both sides of the debate are POV, so they go on a balanced page of the issue MarkBul 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hopelessly and intrinsically subjective. Gives legitimacy to provocative terminology on which there is no consensus. Watchingthevitalsigns 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unconnected Listcruft with a POV. Violates WP:NEO, WP:LIST, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Bearian 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherently POV, a libel powderkeg. Keep in mind that the BLP policy exists precisely because an article accused its subject of being involved in a murder. Gazpacho 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Judicial murder" is a real term, but refers to the show trials of Milada Horáková, Heliodor Píka, and the like; the article should primarily deal with these events. As the article stands, it is a disjoint list based on Special:Whatlinkshere/Judicial murder. - Mike Rosoft 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there's nothing here that isn't rightly covered by another topic. Dlabtot 02:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


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.