Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In haec verba

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 List of Latin legal terms#I. Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In haec verba

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Legal definition doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTDICTIONARY, lacks detailed coverage in multiple sources. Perhaps Wiktionary would be a more suitable location for this term? MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of these articles. Category:Latin legal terminology. Any discussion about them should be in the proper wikiproject, to gain consensus on what to do with them. Those who study law should may know textbooks giving examples of this or coverage perhaps. Dream Focus 00:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe show that Wikipedia's notability policies are met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Latin legal terms#I, where it's listed. This is an article about "a phrase", so WP:NOTDICT does apply. Although this phrase certainly is in common usage and is frequently defined in dictionaries, I haven't been able to find sources that discuss the phrase as such in depth, as would be required for notability under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The best I could find was pgs. 54–55 of [1], which is really more an overview of pleading practices than a specific discussion of the concept. In this case, a redirect to the list is a fine alternative to deletion: it takes readers to the information they're likely looking for (the term's translation and definition) without resulting in the loss of encyclopedic content. (Redirection to a list or relevant article would also be appropriate for some of the other articles in Category:Latin legal terminology, although many others – Habeas corpus, In loco parentis, Ex post facto law, etc. – merit stand-alone articles because they're about notable concepts, not merely non-notable terms. Articles in this category should be discussed individually, as we're doing now, so that we can search for sources and propose relevant ATDs case by case.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Redirect to List of Latin legal terms. Some Latin legal terms will be worthy of an article, this one doesn't seem to be.--Jahaza (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Latin legal terms#I.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 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.