Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the shadow of a doubt

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 redirect to Reasonable doubt. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the shadow of a doubt

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

This article seems to consist primarily of original research (in the sense of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research).

After removing original research and unsourced material, very little would be left here.

I feel that this is at best a candidate for a short dictionary entry, but not an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpegden (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 July 2014

I've had to set up this entire page so I apologize if I've missed anything out or buggered anything up. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mixup with the page. I thought I followed the directions, but I'll be more careful next time. Wpegden (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question to be considered here is whether the TOPIC of the term "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" merits an article. Specific criticisms of the current state of an article are always of minor importance.

In my opinion the nomination's suggestion that the article be moved to the wiktionary is based on a mistake. The term is widely used in an ironic manner, with no meaningful association with jurisprudence. Educated people for whom English is a second language, may come across this term, over and over again, without ever realizing it is derived from jurisprudence.

Here is an example where the term is used merely for emphasis, with no meaningful association with jurisprudence:

In fact, writes Coontz, the traditional family of the 1950s was a qualitatively new phenomenon. At the end of the 1940s, all the trends characterizing the rest of the twentieth century suddenly reversed themselves. This clear-eyed, bracing, and exhaustively researched study of American families and the nostalgia trap proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary.

Here is an example where the term is used by neuropsychologists, theoretically discussing the mechanism behind the subjective feeling of certainty:

In fact, when validity represents the over-riding concern, individuals may be motivated to postpone closure and, in extreme cases, to avoid it altogether. This is not inevitable, however: If a particular closure appears valid beyond the shadow of a doubt (e.g., because of the impeccable credibility of its source), the fear of invalidity may increase the tendency to embrace it rather than prompting its avoidance or postponement. Thus, closure avoidance should be conceptually distinguished from the fear of invalidity. Although closure avoidance may be often induced by such fear, this may not hold invariably.

Here is an example from nuclear physics that addresses the slim theoretical possibility that a side effect of building and using even higher powered atom smashers may trigger the disintegration of planet Earth -- again, a usage that has nothing to do with jurisprudence:

We pose the question of whether one can, on the basis of established facts, exclude beyond the shadow of a doubt the “BNL doomsday scenario”

So, in my opinion, the article should be retained. Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo Swan. What mistake do you think my suggestion to delete the article is based on? I never suggested that this term is only used in jurisprudence. To the contrary, my sense is that this is an English phrase used in many situations. It has a definition which should be in a dictionary. I don't think it is a notable topic for an Encyclopedia. (Are there any non-dictionary primary sources at all whose topic is this term?) Wpegden (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the phrase itself is a notable subject. Geo Swan's cites show that the phrase is used a lot, but the cited sources are not about the phrase; they're merely examples of its use. As the nom points out, once you remove all the WP:OR, all you're left with is a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia:Not a dictionary . Does Wiktionary do phrases as well as words? If so, that would be a better home for it (absent the OR). TJRC (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary does treat phrases, including wikt:shadow of a doubt. Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This expression is at least a plausible redirect to Certainty and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. I think that redirection would be a better outcome than deletion. James500 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. I am the original nominator for deletion, but would be willing to embrace the redirect option also if that has more support. (I see some people above me suggesting that the article should be kept on the basis that the phrase appears in some articles. As TJRC notes, these are just examples of usage, not examples of considering the phrase as a topic unto itself.) Wpegden (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reasonable doubt This article reeks of WP:OR, but we need to look at the notability of the phrase itself. The phrase is notable but I don't see a need for a separate article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Agreed with Solarra. Lots of original research, and, even if that wasn't there, there is no need for this separate article anyway. United States Man (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2014 (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.