Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-made law

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. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man-made law

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

Dicdef at best. The only ref is to a blog post, the main thrust of which is that a man in Ireland named John Hill is in fact Jesus Christ.... um not a good ref. Not to say that phrase has never been spoken, but if there was to be article on this subject (doubtful, but you never know) starting from zero would be better than starting from here. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this word has been popularized especially recently by several islamic extremist groups, and less commonly by extremists from other religions. I have added more references anyway. Pass a Method talk 09:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What potential do you see it as having beyond a mere definition of the term? And would it actually be part of a larger topic, something like Islamic criticism of secular law, rather than a distinct concept? postdlf (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Pass a Method, you haven't added more refs. Because I deleted them. Because they are raw Google Books URLs which are useless as refs because, among other problems, they provide no information if one can't follow the link (e.g. when offline or using a printed copy or other reasons). You have been counseled repeatedly by myself and others on this, and are apparently unable or unwilling to change. For another editor I'd be willing to fix them instead, but I'm not your cleanup boy; I've told you before that I'll delete on sight any more raw Google Books URLs that you post as refs and have done so. Herostratus (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Herostratus, You might need to see an optician because those were not raw URL links and you've been reverted.
    - @Postdlf, The title "Islamic criticism of secular law" would be incorrect because the term man-made law has also used by christian evangelists, as noted in two references. It could be expanded to include a history section of people or organizations who have used the term. Pass a Method talk 20:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...and anything else? Because with a definition and a list of uses, you just have a WP:DICDEF, not an article. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering this phrase has been used by many notable organizations such as Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, Muslims Against Crusades etc. (and i havent found it in an ordinary dictionary) i think this does not fall under WP:DICDEF. I also dont think wikipedia has rules on a minimum number of words if im correct, so i dont think it needs to necessarily have a dozen paragraphs or something. Pass a Method talk 20:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not an issue of length, it's an issue of the kind of information. Unless you can say something more than that, it does fall under WP:DICDEF. Please read that page thoroughly and reconsider. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per wp:dicdef. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:DICDEF, unless something more than a basic definition and list of uses can be shown, though I think at best this is part of a larger topic on religious views on secular law rather than a discrete concept or term of art. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral now on current version after substantial expansion. I have a concern that it might be WP:SYNTH at present, and it may belong under positive law instead, but I'll leave that to others to work out or argue over. postdlf (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. "Man-made law" is an alternative name for what Thomas Aquinas called lex humana. It is a concept in natural law theory, and, if it is not an article, should be redirected to an article on that subject, probably Positive law. James500 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Positive law. I'm not an expert on legal philosophy, but those articles seem to be different names for the same concept, both contrasted with natural law. Robofish (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is an OR def, not an enc. article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~We do not delete plausible redirects for that reason. James500 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)~~ Struck because Ism schism has changed his rationale. James500 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. As this is an OR article, and not an enc. article, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We include redirects from plausible misnomers, so that probably doesn't matter. James500 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Robofish, rather than delete, because this is a plausible redirect to positive law. But it does not stand alone as an article. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Relisted because the article has been substantially changed after February 7. Sandstein 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst there may be scope for merger it is not straightforward, and in the context of this AfD discussion the content of the article as it presently stands should be kept. As pointed out above, the term is a common and appropriate expression in English (eg from lex humana in Aquinas) of a very important concept in the history of political philosophy (or philosophy or theory of jurisprudence as you prefer). It can be alternatively named positive law, but as the Positive law article points out that term is used in several different senses, so merging what we have here into that short article would not be helpful without a recasting and expansion to give those different meanings due weight. Personally I would be happier with it as a stand alone article. --AJHingston (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I think the article has been improved significantly since my last comments. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: it has really advanced since the nomination, and it seems that keeping it would now be in order. Herostratus (talk)
Keep. The article has improved. It appears that man-made law and positive law are not co-terminus, so a merger is not appropriate. James500 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well-referenced article on a notable philosophical concept (lex humana), per AJHingston. -- 202.124.72.98 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2012 (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.