Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead hand problem

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I like this article, it should stay in Wikipedia. However, I'm having difficulty proving this term actually exists. A shame that, so I'm gonna have to AFD it. Dangherous 13:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the article is somehow built up significantly. Good catch, Dangherous! Kukini 13:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! We can't have articles that don't belong in here for over a year! I wonder what the longest time an article has remained wrongfully deleted... --Dangherous 13:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, wastepaper dicdef. RGTraynor 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would like to say keep & expand. But the problem is verification WP:V, (usually) when used the meaning is seen as self evident and not explained, causing problems with citing examples. The term is used beyond interpreting the United States Constitution, but with interpretations of laws/contracts/constitutions (and so on) in general and in the meaning (interpreters perspectives) of texts/document in regard to history or philosophy and the like. As well can refer in decisions and debates to where some lingering interest or influence (intentionally or unintentionally) is attached onto some thing (for example with wills/laws/contracts) and it is seen as a problem. For poor of example of this have a look at the legal rule Rule against perpetuities.--blue520 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, although I'd be curious to see a good definition of the term now. Amazon turns it up in Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution and a Google search turns it up on some webpages pertaining to law, e.g. [1]. But I don't know if it could be expanded beyond a dicdef or not. Шизомби 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands now. In law, a variety of "dead hand problems" arise. The phrase is more familiar to me in matters of wills and trusts: to what extent do we want the dead to be able to direct the lives of the living by putting various conditions on inherited money. The law of mortmain sought to restrict tying up land indefinitely by giving it to churches and other corporations. (Might make a good redirect.) This sense is rather minor. Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete for reasons cited above, and lacking any real article content. I don't think there's one best target for a redirect of this title, as it's not specific to Rule against perpetuities or mortmain or the US Constitution. I've heard the term used both in constitutional law and inheritance law, but not in a way that I could find citations worth using here. Barno 21:02, 20 April 2006 (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.