Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uttering (2nd nomination)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Uttering
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article provides only misinformation, and fails WP:VERIFY because the sources do not actually verify what the article purports. The word “uttering”, as a legal term, is used only in conjunction with the U.S. crime of Uttering and publishing, or in Canada/Britain with the crime of Uttering a forged document. Similarly, in commonly law the word has no “stand alone” legal meaning. A search of on-line legal dictionaries fails to find the word “uttering” as a stand-alone legal term. Previous AfD was closed prematurely (after only 12 hours) by a non-admin editor. Securel (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If the article needs improvement then it should be improved, rather than deleted. "Uttering" is a technical term in English law concerned with passing counterfeit coins: see,  which has a whole section on "uttering" which defines the standalone term,  and .  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- Acather96 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- Acather96 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be a notable topic. A case to delete could be made based on "not a dictionary" since the article is mainly about the use of the word, not the crime itself. However it is useful if a person wants to know what the crime of "uttering" is. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It helps to add the word "currency" when searching to narrow down the hits to ones that are relevant, which seem to be plentiful in at least scholar. Since it is a legal term, it would be acceptable to have more than a dictionary definition.  Probably more commonly used outside of the USA, but that doesn't make it less worthy of an article in the English version of Wikipedia.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominating an article for the second time for AFD when nothing has changed to give a preditable delete result only results in the Keep-votes becoming more firm.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After reviewing the logs for the first AFD, I do have to agree that it was closed improperly after less than a day and only two comments. That said, I still say to keep the article.  Won't hurt to let the process play out.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since this seemed to work the last time around, I'll try again:
 * Uttering is clearly a crime in several countries. See the sources in the article (e.g., "Forgery per se is not a crime. The crime is uttering, i.e. using as genuine a fabricated writing falsely intended to pass as genuine the writing of another person.") or this quote: "Uttering (Va. Code 18.2-172) is a separate and distinct offense from forgery. The crime of forgery is complete when the accused has made or altered the writing with the intent to defraud. The crime of uttering occurs when the accused uses or attempts to use a forged writing..."  Yes, I suppose something must be uttered just as something must be stolen, someone must be murdered, &c., but that doesn't preclude having an article under those titles at Wikipedia.
 * See also the following sources for info:
 * Charles Curry. "Forgery, and Uttering Forged Instruments". The Virginia Law Register. Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 1902). pp. 79-96.
 * David Crystal-Kirk. "Forgery Reforged: Art-Faking and Commercial Passing-off since 1981". The Modern Law Review. Vol. 49, No. 5 (September 1986). pp. 608-616.
 * —  AjaxSmack  22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I have some sympathy for the nominator here - in its original usage to utter is merely to issue forth, and it survives in British English at least in respect of the spoken word (eg to utter a remark). In the case of counterfeit coin, which appears to be where the term gained legal significance in England, it was clearly important to distinguish cases where the accused had actually forged the coin from ones where he had merely uttered it (and why the latter should be a crime if the necesary guilty intent were present). So 'uttering' was a crime only in the context of what was actually uttered (and so it is very different from murder, forgery etc). Having said all that, it is clear that the word does appear widely as a crime in many legal reference works by dint of usage (I can add the Oxford Companion to Law from 1980 to the list), and is clearly notable. As a technical term, with differing applications in each jurisdiction (eg between England and Scotland) there is plenty of scope for it to become a respectable article. It is well short of that now. AJHingston (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. You note that "original usage to utter is merely to issue forth" but it has largely lost that wide meaning now and yet retains it in the legal sense.  All the more reason to keep the article just as we have an article on murder that deals largely with the legal aspects of the term.  "Uttering" (with explanation and examples) is precisely the type of entry that an encyclopedia was designed for.  —  AjaxSmack   01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is the reverse in Britain - to utter in relation to speech, in particular, remains a common usage, whilst the legal usage as here is obsolete in England, where the offence is of passing counterfeit notes and coins. It would be equally correct, and more natural, to speak of somebody uttering a slander as far as linguistic usage goes. But I wasn't arguing for deltion, just making the point that the nomination was not as ill-conceived as seemed to be suggested. The article does need to make very clear that it is talking specifically about the legal use and its evolution in Common Law jurisdictions. AJHingston (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Poor article, which should be improvable. There does appear to be a legal concept of uttering that is common to all of the named jurisdictions. We have scope for a lightweight article that covers this, but whose prime purpose is to link onwards to the separate descriptions of uttering in the more specific contexts for which each jurisdiction makes specific use of the term. Ideally these would be larger separate articles, although even separate sections in one (as at present) justify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2011 (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.