Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial tyranny (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 merge to Judicial activism. --MuZemike 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial tyranny

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

Essay. The list of largely primary sources is a good tip-off, but further examination of the text likewise reveals that this is someone's original attempt to draw together disparate sources and/or to write paragraphs and paragraphs of original material with no citations at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an original essay on a topic which is inherently POV in nature. Carrite (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I restored the version that survived the first AFD, who was cursory but not horrid, and located the source quote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Judicial activism; this seems to be merely a more strident slogan for the same behavior. bd2412 T 00:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kritarchy. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see anything suggesting that historical systems involving rule by judges are equated with tyranny by judges. bd2412 T 00:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  - I don't expect to win many people over, but the phrase "Judicial tyranny" suggests to me something more akin to the Islamic Courts Union than the 9th Circuit court of appeals. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question is not necessarily what it "suggests" to any of us as editors, but what it is actually used to mean to the public. A quick Google search indicates that the term is addressed overwhelmingly towards views of the American judiciary. bd2412 T 19:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This is pretty much a POV fork of Judicial activism, is it not? There is so much here that needs to be surgically removed with a chainsaw that it's hard to say "merge" rather than "delete" or "redirect" is the solution... Carrite (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the article has changed more than once during the course of this debate, and has tended towards NPOV synthesis. However, I think it is appropriate to at least retain references to the fact that the phrase "judicial tyranny" has been used to mean the same thing that "judicial activism". bd2412 T 14:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
merge the useful contents of the carious versions into judicial activism. This particular term is non-neutral, though I agree with bd2412 that the term has to be recognized. The other concerns expressed van be met by proper editing of the merged article. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 26 December 2011 (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.