Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extinctive prescription


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Extinctive prescription

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Legal term. WP:DICDEF. Sources are all low-quality.  Sandstein  20:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems to be a notable topic:
 * M. M. Loubser, Towards a Theory of Extinctive Prescription, 105 S. AFRICAN L.J. 34, 53 (1988). https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tulr85&i=3
 * Johnson, Walter S. “Extinctive Prescription-Conflict of Laws-Sources of Quebec Rules.” The University of Toronto Law Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, 1941, pp. 109–130. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/823917
 * Sherman, Charles P. “Acquisitive Prescription. Its Existing World-Wide Uniformity.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, 1911, pp. 147–156. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/783887. (See page 148.)
 * Tams, Christian J., Waiver, Acquiescence and Extinctive Prescription (June 4, 2009). Crawford et al.: Manuel de la Responsabilité Internationale, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1414188
 * B. E. King, Prescription of Claims in International Law, 15 BRIT. Y.B. INT'L L. 82, 97 (1934). https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/byrint15&i=86
 * Vincent Sagaert, 'Prescription in French and Belgian Property Law after the Pye Judgment' (2007) 15 European Review of Private Law, Issue 2, pp. 265–272 (paywalled at http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?id=ERPL2007015# ; the snippet I can see looks like it has at least a brief discussion)
 * HP Mansel - Encyclopedia of Private International Law, 2017, "extinctive prescription" (another paywall at https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547235, but the intro that shows up in the snippet looks promising)
 * I think the reference to Prescription Act 1832 (barely) saves it from being a mere dicdef. While this stub needs a lot of work, I think it passes notability. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It's the nomination that is low quality. This is not a dictionary article; it's a stub.  WP:DICDEF explains the difference and says""One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.""


 * Then there's the complaint about sourcing. There are works of hundreds of pages about the topic and here's an accessible example.  So, we have misunderstanding of policy and a failure to follow WP:BEFORE.  See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I gotta speak up for the nominating editor here. It was a pretty poor article, and while I think it should be kept, the nomination here does not look like it was made either in bad faith or incompetently. I found a number of sources, but if I didn't have the Heinonline amd JSTOR access, it would have been very difficult to see that they supported the keep. TJRC (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm happy to buy that. For several of the sources, the front page abstract didn't really include anything on EP, so even if they did come up, they'd be disregarded. I could only view and grow it because I have JSTOR access. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - there's clearly good enough sourcing, and I've added some more content to make it clearer that DicDef doesn't apply. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY - anyway, the concept itself is notable. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2019 (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.