Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure of issue


 * 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. The article has been expanded, and sources have been added. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Failure of issue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

If, after 9 years, no-one has shown any inclination to expand this beyond a mere dictionary definition (which it is by the author's admission), then I think this should be deleted. Adam9007 (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep. Ludicrous nomination. No valid rationale for deletion. Clearly satisfies GNG with entire books on the subject. A valid stub is not a dictionary definition, and the nominator's rationale is wholly incompatible with BEFORE and our policies IMPERFECT, PRESERVE and ATD, since this clearly can be expanded beyond a definition. It is also possible to have an article that at first sight looks like a definition, but is really a restatement of rules of statute and case law. What such an article is really trying to say is that if a person does such and such, then certain legal consequences follow, but is saying it in an oblique way. So what this article is really trying to say is that, if there is a failure of issue, certain legal consquences follow (ie there are complicated rules for deciding who gets the property if there are no children). And that's no definition. In any event, it is possible for expressions, and definitions of expressions, to be notable as such, and again this is one of them. Terms of art typically are. James500 (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about notability. I am talking about the article being a mere definition (it reads like one to me and the author says it is) for 9 years. If you want to improve the article, go ahead, but in its current state, its hardly worthy of a separate article. Adam9007 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Needs expansion" has never been a valid grounds for deletion unless the article is actually incapable of being expanded (which is directly related to notability). The current state of the article, and the length of time it has been that way are an utter irrelevance. The editing and deletion policies (PRESERVE and ATD) make this very clear. AfD isn't cleanup. Nor is it an 'edit on demand' service. It is not appropriate to bring an AfD with the object of pressurising the volunteers at AfD into expanding an article that you want to see expanded but you simply cannot be bothered to work on yourself. You should withdraw this nomination and improve the article yourself (which should be easy), immediately. If you want to summon assistance, we have cleanup templates for that, we don't use AfD. James500 (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * James500 is correct. We should not be focusing on the current state of the article, but rather on its potential, which the nominator should have considered per deletion procedure. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, deletion (or the threat thereof) is not a means to improvement. So let's discuss only whether the article can be expanded beyond a definition. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I searched and there is nothing beyond the simple definition - "someone who dies without having children." I certainly did not find "entire books on the subject" - where are those books? I would guess the reason it has not been expanded in nine years is because it is an archaic term and there is not much to expand on. At best it could be mentioned in property law but I don't see the need for its own article. WP:NOTDICTIONARY would apply here.  —Мандичка YO 😜 07:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have obviously either not searched for sources at all or have completely failed to understand them. The entire book is Gifts Over of Property on Indeterminate Failure of Issue (1909). An example of coverage that is clearly not a simple definition is the passage that reads "An executory devise to take effect on an indefinite failure of issue is void for remoteness" (my emphasis) and so on and so forth in the article "failure of issue" in the 1891 edition of Black's Law Dictionary. That means, roughly, that if a will contains an instruction that says "give this piece of land to so and so if there is an indefinite failure of issue", that instruction cannot be lawfully carried out, and the will is invalid in that respect. Then it talks about how the courts apply techniques of interpretation (ie twist the words of the will to breaking point and beyond in order to hold that it does not refer to an indeterminate failure of issue) to avoid that result. That is no definition at all. It is talking about the validity of gifts of real property in wills that take effect on failure of issue. And there is plenty more where that came from. So, for example, the rule about failure of issue I mention above is explained in more detail, indeed at great length, in Bouvier's Institutes of American Law and this, to name but two of the many sources. We can easily write an article that is much more than a definition, by including an explanation of this rule, which is a purpose or use of the concept of "failure of issue". Judges and legislators generally don't create definitions that don't serve some purpose beyond mere definition. James500 (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would think all developed jurisdictions would have a body of law regarding what happens when someone dies without any heirs (does the property revert to the state, if so after how long, etc.). I don't remember seeing this term before so I don't know if it's the best title for that topic (is it archaic, is it only used in some jurisdictions), but it should be covered somewhere, if it isn't already. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not determined the complete scope of this topic or micro checked the encyclopedia to see if this topic is covered elsewhere. It appears connected with the rule against perpetuities (see this and this), the interpretation/construction of wills (a notable topic that should certainly have an article: In "The Law of Real Property", Robert Megarry called this subject "vast") and intestacy. The concept is not archaic and has been used in the United Kingdom (see section 29 of the Wills Act 1837, which was still in force in 1993: Sweet and Maxwell's Property Statutes, 6th Ed; check the Statute Law Database, and you might find it is still in force today) as well as in America and is likely to be used in all jurisdictions that have what is known as Anglo-American law (ie present and former British colonies). My view is that there is more than enough material to justify a separate article. AfD isn't really for merger proposals, or a good place to discuss them, and unless someone proposes a specific target for merger, I think we should just keep the article. And the article's talk page would still be a much better place to discuss that, at which point I would normally urge a procedural close. James500 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I expanded the article -- it now includes plenty of sources to support the notability of this concept. I included a section about the historical development of the concept as well as modern application. Please feel free to edit accordingly if you think the article can be improved in any way. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2015 (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.