Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De bene esse


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

De bene esse

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Canis Lupus 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete. In addition to the dictionary definition problem, this article may have been created to push a Sovereign Citizen Movement point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see any POV pushing in that article.   SIS   21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From the day the article was created, there has been a quotation from "Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona, All Rights Reserved without Prejudice" in the article. The use of a comma in the middle of a person's name and phrases such as "sui juris" and "without prejudice" with no clear referent are characteristic of the sovereign citizen movement. Since Wallen is not otherwise identified, I wonder about the inclusion of this person as a source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I still don't see a POV being pushed. The article is a neutral explanation of the Latin phrase as far as I can tell.   SIS   23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dictionaries don't explain things this well (see this example) and the article is well sourced. I fail to see the problem.   SIS   21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neptune 5000  ( talk ) 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On present state, this article appears to comprise a dictdef, together with a special pleading definition drawn from, and in the language of, sovereign citizen sources. It will be for wiser heads than I to decide if this meets Wiki-standards.  IMHO, it does not. -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment. The article could be merged into the Wiktionary version of this article, which seems like a better place for it. Neptune 5000  ( talk ) 09:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge with Wiktionary article. I finally understand, however, what Metropolitan90 meant by saying that the article may have been created with the intention of pushing a Sovereign Citizen Movement POV. The person "Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona" signed the article upon its creation, and they could have aimed to push the POV by declaring that the citizen is allowed to refuse to submit him- or herself to the jurisdiction of the court, which is a right claimed by "sovereign citizens". However, I personally don't see an overt attempt to recruit "citizens". My reason for supporting the merge proposed by Neptune5000 is that, as Strikeout_Sister suggested, the Wiktionary definition for de bene esse is relatively poor in quality. We can thus choose either a good dictdef by merging this article into Wiktionary, or a mediocre dictdef and stub-class article by leaving them both as they are. What does have to go, though, is the reference to "Janet Mary, Wallen, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona, All Rights Reserved without Prejudice". That is original research, since editors cannot cite themselves. Not to mention that she can't have all rights reserved "without prejudice" because she released that information under the GNU licence by putting it on Wikipedia. Phlyght (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that Wallen is the person who created this article. The username is not similar enough for me to conclude that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I assumed Wallen created the article because I don't see why anyone else would tag the article like that upon its creation. But even if Wallen is not the editor herself, Wallen cannot be cited as a source because they are identified as a citizen, not a publisher of a legal journal or an editor for a legal dictionary, but a citizen. Phlyght (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that Wallen is not a reliable source and should not be cited in this article. The text cited to her appears to have been taken directly from this document, which appears to be a court filing she made on her own behalf and is far from a legal authority. In fact, in this later document, Wallen purports to, among other things, revoke her birth certificate. As to why someone other than Wallen herself would quote her as a source, all I can say is that it's called the sovereign citizen movement because there are people who believe this stuff and consider each other authorities on the law. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is about a legal concept, not a phrase, so WP:NOTDICT doesn't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is what this is for. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 06:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - to link provided by Kickstart. Many of the terms there have several lines describing them. This could easily fit within that. Chaldor (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2008 (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.