Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incontrovertible evidence

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway Talk 11:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Incontrovertible evidence
Dictionary or should be merged PhilipO 17:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No articles on Conclusive evidence, Conclusion of fact, or Conclusion of law.  It is needed both for Law categories and Logic. nobs 17:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep ... and mathematics too.
 * Abstain Not so sure anymore after all. --R.Koot 19:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . Dicdef, not clearly explained anyway, and the notions from law, philosophical logic, and mathematics, are distinct among them.  I'd change to "keep" if the article could be fleshed out to explain various notions of what constitutes "incontrovertible evidence", debate over whether there's such a thing, and if all of this were sourced. --Trovatore 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just noticed that the article is new as of today; that seems a bit early to put it on VfD.  Probably should have been marked  ; then I'd have been more patient.  I'm leaving my delete vote for now, but I'll watch developments and consider. --Trovatore 20:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to keep, for now. R. Koot has put on a stub notice and promised to write the article.  I'm assuming article can be renominated if improvements aren't satisfactory --Trovatore 23:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * back to delete, per other discussion --Trovatore 04:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand Give notable term time to grow. Xoloz 04:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with evidence. Adjectivizations do not generally warrant their own article. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio, from here. But since someone said they'd work on it, I'll hold off a bit. -Splash 18:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment so the "copyvio" seems at odds with what I was thinking, which was close to "original research". But is there some lawyer who can comment on whether "incontrovertible evidence" is a genuine legal term of art, as opposed to (as I had assumed) a mere rhetorical flourish?  If it doesn't have a meaning not obviously apparent from its constituent English words, then I want to change my vote back to "delete". --Trovatore 01:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was wondering which was why I took it to Google instead of one of those silly online encyclopedias. My conclusion was that it probably is not a proper legal term, since that was the only earlyish Google that treated that way. I think I might drop a message to User:BD2412, as I understand he's a lawyer. -Splash 02:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This appears to be a hyperbolic dicdef. It is indeed not a proper legal term - I'm not aware of any case ever ascribing a particular meaning to the term, and it does not appear in the pocket Black's Law Dictionary; the proper legal term is conclusive evidence (defined primarily as "evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary"). However, I abstain from voting as I am not so sure that the article should not exist as a philosophical distinction. -- BD2412 talk 02:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:Conclusive evidence is exactly the definition I was looking for when I created the article; this was the only defintion I could find, but would be very much interested in the other term. Thank you. nobs 02:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with evidence. -- Naive cynic 08:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Evidence is a disambiguation page - I presume the above merge votes are thinking of either Evidence (law), or Scientific evidence (which redirects to Scientific method. -- BD2412 talk 14:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * merge and rewrite as copyvio, Law Dictionary as this seems to be a proper legal term. This the antithesis of rebuttable evidence. and is used in Supreme Court cases, CRIST, WARDEN, ET AL. v. BRETZ ET AL., BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS ET AL. v. JACOBS ET AL., etc. Mmmbeer 17:51, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.