Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal syllogism


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. Article completely rewritten in compliance with policy. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Legal syllogism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced WP:SYN by sock of prolific sockpuppeteer user:Lawmander, whose MO is idiosyncratic writing on the law supported primarily by citations to his own work. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination makes a vague wave to WP:SYN without stating what the supposed synthetic proposition is. The reason that the page has no references is that the nominator has edit warred to remove its reference.  It's quite easy to find more references such as: Methods of Legal Reasoning; A Primer on Legal Reasoning; Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT; WP:ATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:SOFIXIT; &c.  Andrew D. (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the history of the article. It's personal opinion by an author who puts his personal opinion in every edit he writes, usuall cited to his own writing off-wiki. WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no personal opinion in the article and no evidence or example is provided – another vague wave. WP:TNT, on the other hand, is an essay which "contains ... opinions ... This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" so see WP:POT. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't. I reviewed the creator's edits. The creator is apparently a graduate of a Polish law school with what appears to be an undergraduate degree but no active affiliations I can trace. He has published a handful of articles, mainly in predatory open access and other dubious journals. He has used at least 30 sockpuppet accounts, and in every case his MO is to insert his novel synthesis based on his own publications. Normally that is a simple matter of rolling back to the version before the first edit, which I and others have done, but this article was written by him from the ground up so there is no version free of his writing. Given that every single known example of his writing on Wikipedia is his own opinion cited to his own writing, and this is his opinion with citations to his own writing removed, that suggests that the content is probably unreliable so a clean version will be required in order to avoid the taint of WP:SYN.
 * As a term, it exists, usually attributed to MacCormick, but I cannot verify that it is connected in any way to the idiosyncratic presentation here. I can't be confident that anything past the article title is correct, and in the case of the primary author, there is good reason to suppose that it may not be. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Oxford University considers it a real thing. Click the Google search  for it and you'll find other colleges mentioning it as well.   D r e a m Focus  00:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, and if someone rewrites it form sources that would be fine, but this is user:Lawmander and that is a real problem. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since when (other than COI/PROMO, which don't apply here) was the editor who started the article a reason to delete? FOARP (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is when the editor's entire history consists of WP:OR and sockpuppetry, and this article has no sources when the creating editor's own work in crappy journals is removed. There is no reason to beleive a single word of the current content, and there are no reliable independent sources in the article. That means the article violates Wikipedia policy. Feel free to rewrite and add sources if you can find them. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete, unless references can be found to support this. No references, no article. NoCOBOL (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:NEXIST says. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what it says. Yes, the references don't need to be in the article - though an article with 0 references is highly suspect - but they should exist. If they exist, add them to the article. If they don't, wipe the article. NoCOBOL (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added a few references. If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject.  That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.  The concept and the article are worth saving.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I clicked on Google scholar link, you will find a whole 'nother library full of articles and books dealing with this subject. That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm a lawyer and former professor of law and I can tell you that this is very much a thing. I'll add some sources on the weekend. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you also please fix it so it describes the subject not some wibble that a Polish guy dreamed up? Guy (Help!) 00:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be anything factually wrong with the material but I may do a re-write as to better explain the reason this is so important. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for actually addressing the problem. Unfortunately others have fallen for the fallacious view that because the term is important, thus this article should remain, which is clearly not the case given the serious problems with the creator. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly missing plenty of context because I have no idea why the author of the article is so controversial that it's prompting people to delete the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled by the cited fact that "some Polish guy" started this article. Why is that an argument?  How is that an argument?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's almost surreal, isn't it? Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kafkaesque, I think. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kafka was Czech, no? (OK, German-speaking Bohemian Jewish). At any rate, I sense a hint of grave-dancing in this nomination. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems like WP:BEFORE has not been performed, a quick look in Google Books shows plenty of sources, ditto in Google Scholar - . Should easily pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. Keeping it will be wise also.
 * As to the merits, as a lawyer I would say this is a fundamental concept central to the law, no matter that it is a common law or civil law system. Indeed, this is the way law school Socratic method works, and the way that court systems are supposed to work.
 * The article can be improved, but that is no reason to delete.
 * The ad hominen attack on the article's creator is a fallacious irrelevancy.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an ad hominem, the guy is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppeteer! Guy (Help!) 15:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing your information. Only your reasoning and conclusion.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Your argument about who made the edits has nothing to do with the quality of the article, and its potential sourcing.  It is a "poison the well" argument.  If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So here's the thing. I read some of what sources I can find, and they say this: The legal syllogism is an application of a syllogism (question, minor premise, major premise, conclusion) specifically in law, with the question being the legal issue, the minor premise being the facts, the major premise being the law, and the conclusion being the verdict. Thus: Issue: Is the defendant guilty of theft? Facts: The defendant broke into a house and removed a television set which he then sold. Law: Theft is the taking of property without consent, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner. Holding: The defendant is guilty of theft. The content kind of said something a bit like that but also waffled on about "The facts of the case at hand (also called pending, instant, sub judice, at bar or under argument)" - which is absolutely characteristic of the writing of this sockpuppeteer. He adds his personal idiosyncratic views of related concepts, often in poor English, and always cited to his own writing. This article as I found it did not match the concept as I understand it, and I do not have access to the legal sources necessary to fix that. The article was therefore unfixable by me without engaging in my own original research. It took about four goes of Googling before I even worked out how old the term is. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant no disrespect. This is about fixing the problem (the article), not about fixing the blame.  I WP:AGF.
 * The original author apparently has some legal training, at least. Thus the legalisms you found, which may (or may not) be good encyclopædic writing.  Law schools typically inculcate 'thinking like a lawyer,' which is sometimes an advantage and sometimes not.
 * As I wrote earlier, if you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject. That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.
 * It should inform all of us whether this exercise should continue.
 * Sometimes in Wikipedia we are faced with these Kenny Rogers moments. See The Gambler.  Cheers.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Props to 7&6=thirteen for taking an article with zero sources at AfD open to one that is well sourced. We should stop discussing the articles origins because it no longer matters, it is irrelevant, the article has been totally refactored and the underlying concern raised by Guy is addressed. -- Green  C  15:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.