Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrestandis bonis ne dissipentur

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 merge to Writ. Sandstein 07:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrestandis bonis ne dissipentur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another longstanding dicdef on a legal phrase, which should either be merged into a list of ancient/obsolete writs, or moved to Wiktionary. It should not be a freestanding article. BD2412 T 06:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 06:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Glossary of law. These writs seem to be included in more or less every book ever published on the subject. Their full names are not always used. Sometimes their names are abbreviated by books, and sometimes by the fact that Google Books' OCR has difficulty with double column pages etc. James500 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Merge and redirect to Writ. On second thoughts, I think that, in this case, Writ is a better target than the glossary. James500 (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @James500: I appreciate what you are aiming for with the Glossary of law, but given that the latest Black's Law Dictionary is well over a thousand pages, I do not think that this is conceptually manageable. Feel free to prove me wrong, though. BD2412 T 02:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The merger of five very short articles into a 15kB list is not in any way comparable to a thousand page book. Our glossary of law has not so far attempted to reproduce the whole of Black's or anything close to that. Howell's glossary, which was been used as the starting point for our glossary, is 51 pages of fairly large and widely spaced type. In any event, we have glossaries with a similar scope and organisation in Category:Wikipedia glossaries. We also have lists with tens or hundreds of thousands of entries. Compared to those, our glossary of law is presently extremely small. Even if, for the sake of argument, we later considered it necessary to remove these five writs from the glossary, I could create a List of writs to house them and other suitable writs. And I would take care of that personally. James500 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just saying that the title, "Glossary of law", is not limited to any specific source, and if it were to end up being a complete collection reflecting that title, it would either be enormous or subdivided into a great many parts. BD2412 T 03:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The glossary is limited by the judgment and discretion of the editor(s) who maintain it. What you refer to as a "complete collection" has not been attempted. I do not understand why you suggest that it might be attempted in the future. I see no reason to worry about hypothetical theoretical imaginary scenarios. James500 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That sounds arbitrary. I would suggest putting some limiting principles in writing to describe what should be included or excluded. BD2412 T 04:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why are you not concerned about the other glossaries that have a similar scope and similar approach, such as Glossary of agriculture, amongst others? Why are you not concerned that the corresponding article Law does not have "limiting principles in writing"? Are you asking for "limiting principles in writing" that would prevent the merger of the five articles you have nominated? James500 (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you don't like the idea of merging these five articles to the glossary, how about merging and redirecting them to the article Writ? That article is about 20kB and could easily take the content from these five articles. That article already includes a partial list of writs for the US, and it would be easy enough to add a similar list for England. James500 (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • It would have to be done in a way (for most of them) that avoids the impression that these are not ancient and obsolete. BD2412 T 13:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • So far as these articles are based on a book from 1728, that can dealt with that by writing the words "As of 1728", or a cognate expression, or by finding a more recent source. (There are better sources available). If you want to say these writs are obsolete, you would need to actually produce a reliable source that shows that these writs are obsolete. Have these writs been abolished by legislation? Is there a binding or persuasive judicial precedent that says they can no longer be used? In the absence of authority, is there a treatise or periodical article etc that expresses doubt that the courts would allow these writs to be used today? I can tell you, for example, that the writ "Auxilium ad filium militem . . . " is said to be abolished by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 (12 Car 2 c 24): [1]. Desuetude is often said to be unknown to English law. Conversely, I see no evidence that it is automatically applied in English law (if it is applied at all). Sources discussing this include, for example, [2] [3][4] [5].Ashford v Thornton would be an extreme example of the failure of English law to apply desuetude. Another example is the following source specifically dealing with (and denying) the alleged obsolesence of the writ ne exeat regno: [6]. James500 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Writ per above. This, as a dicdef without sufficient context (what does it mean? what are its implications?) cannot stand on its own, but merge-redirecting to the glossary might be unsustainable. Writ is fine, as per the def, it's a subcategory. That said, I do think that we need some better guidance/notability criteria on how to handle dicdefs; I think that, sooner or later, we're going to end up either with a lot of redirects or a lot of unbalanced merges. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 07:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Writ.4meter4 (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.