Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subornation of false muster


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Subornation of false muster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Orphaned since 2010. Google books has five hits for this phrase: two are wikipedia-based books and the other three have no previews. A text search one of the books-- the Behe book-- shows the phrase isn't actually in there. There are ZERO hits in google scholar. The Library of Congress has a PDF of the single source in the wiki article Winthrop's "Military Law and Precedents". Using control F to search the text, you will see (on pages 43, 147, 210) that the source doesn't say what this article claims. On page 210, for example the book says it means desertion or mutiny. Most google search hits about this mention a convicted tax felon trying to use it as a plea, which was rejected by the court. This concludes one to think the phrase is unnotable, lacking even five independent sources, and this article is wrong and/or a WP:HOAX. SalHamton (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — This kind of thing doesn't establish it's even an actual term. I agree coverage is insufficient to indicate the concept meets WP:GNG. If it were an actual term, Wiktionary might be a better place. But it's not. JFHJr (㊟) 02:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. False muster is real military offense, at least in principle: either recording the presence of a soldier (or, potentially, a horse) that is not actually present, or recording the presence of a non-soldier as though they were a soldier.  Subordination of false muster would therefore be illegally inciting someone to do one of those things.  There's zero history of the term ever being used in that context, however.  The only two times that it has ever been employed, it was offered (and rejected) as a plea in a US court proceeding, as part of a failed "sovereign citizen" defense.  Try not to think about how to get from the real definition to that application.  Regardless, although Hovind is notable enough to have an article and the term is mentioned in his article, the other individual who employed the phrase (Michael Didier) is not, and the phrase itself lacks any sort of independent notably regardless.  If someone really, really wanted to keep this in some manner, it could probably be redirected to sovereign citizen movement, but the target would need a lot of cleanup in order to include this phrase as one of the failed legal strategies. I guess we could redirect to Kent Hovind as an alternative, as he is the only person of any real visibility to use the phrase. Or just zap it, as I doubt it would be missed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely fails WP:GNG.  No particular value in redirecting. TJRC (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sovereign citizen movement as pseudo-legal jargon. The term has received some verifiable commentary and was used unsuccessfully as a defense on two occasions. —  C M B J   23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the nomination, there are only two book mentions: both are from wikipedia. The book you are referencing, Great Events from History, took that part word-for-word from the Kent Hovind article, which in turn is all referencing the single news article above. You can't write a wiki article when the one journalist doesn't even know what it means and references Webster's Dictionary for "muster." Moreover, that piece doesn't mention the sovereign citizen movement so there's nothing for an article or a redirect. The Pandas Thumb blog post both of us mentioned, even if it was a source, is just drawing again from the same one news article. SalHamton (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article itself clearly has no place here. I independently checked the article's sole citation (before seeing that you had done the same) and reached the same conclusion that it was almost certainly incorrect. However, I don't see anyone disputing whether the term was actually used in court and subsequently discussed by the public for its peculiarity, so I tend to favor redirecting users to the most closely associated article; though I'd be willing to support deletion if consensus continues to favor that option. Also, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Great Events from History is based on Wikipedia content: the book itself does not appear to attribute its content as such and it (or at least someone it's sourcing) talks about how this bizarre term became a subject of external commentary at one point. —  C M B J   11:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I favor deletion over redirect. If it's redirected, when someone looks up "Subornation of false muster", they'll be sent to sovereign citizen movement, an article that doesn't mention the term at all.  This won't be a service to Wikipedia readers.  Better to have it turn into a search of articles that to redirect to an unhelpful one. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hovind and Didier's cases both seem to be categorically suitable for inclusion in the sovereign citizen movement article, so my support for a redirect assumes the stipulation that we are to describe them there upon closure. —  C M B J   11:58, 16 October 2012 (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.