Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial supervision

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 speedy keep‎. This is now a proper DAB page. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 20:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial supervision

[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)

Contested BLAR. Should redirect to the appropriate entry in Glossary of French criminal law. All of the entries here come from terms in Wikipedia articles that aren't actually used in the sources/topics that they're describing. There are no title matches and I don't think the entries here meet WP:DABRELATED or MOS:DABENTRY.

The articles on parole, probation, and judicial review do not contain the phrase "judicial supervision".
The article Civil procedure in South Africa uses the term twice in the context of Jaftha v Schoeman and Standard Bank v Saunderson, neither of which use the phrase "judicial supervision".
The phrase "judicial supervision of executive acts" links to Philip P. Barbour, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the 1800s. The article uses the phrase in an uncited paragraph: "he authored dissents in Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838) and Holmes v. Jennison (1840). These two dissents sought to diminish federal authority by supporting Jacksonian political aspirations and opposing restrictions to state sovereignty. Kendall dealt with judicial supervision of executive acts" (emphasis added).
Supreme Court of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic does state that "judicial supervision" was a function of the Court, but this is a start class article and there's no indication that that translation is referring to a proper legal term of art. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Disambiguations, South Africa, France, Lithuania, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~but this is a case for a WP:BCA, not a disambiguation page, as these are not ambiguous concepts coincidentally sharing a name~~. BD2412 T 02:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: The term "judicial supervision" appears to be used in various ways across jurisdictions, so it's unclear to me what a BCA would look like at this point. Even if a BCA were appropriate, this page should still be deleted or redirected because this DAB is immensely confusing to readers, as all it does is link to various Wikipedia articles that currently use the words "judicial supervision" but might not in the future. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: I see what you mean. Yes, there is true ambiguity here. I had not even thought about the phrase being used to mean supervision of the judicial function rather than by it. BD2412 T 12:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: The only apparently valid use that we have anything written about on en-wiki is the French judicial supervision, which appears to me to be a form of parole. If someone wanted to write that article, I'd have no objection, but I think that would be more likely to happen if this were red linked from the French criminal law glossary page that I originally BLARed this to. Additionally, some scholars appear to use the phrase in the context of courts appointing monitors, special masters, etc., but I think that information probably belongs under a different article title. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My reason for creation of a disambig page is that when I linked judicial supervision (obviously a term that needs explanation), I saw a blue link, but when I followed it, I surprisingly landed into the French law, clearly irrelevant. Therefore the need in DAB page is crystal clear. At the moment there are at least three different meanings of the term. I am begging people to wire articles for them, because I am not an exprt. Unfortunately it seems that there is not so much lawyers among Wikipedians, I guess for obvious reasons :-) --Altenmann >talk 17:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I surprisingly landed into the French law, clearly irrelevant It's not irrelevant. It's the English translation of a French criminal law term, and that appears to be the only content we have on en-wiki about the term. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt hear what I said: yes it was completely irrelevant in the article I edited. --Altenmann >talk 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The nomination for deletion is without merit. See see my arguments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Judicial supervision. This person decided to escalate the issue without giving a chance to other people to weigh in. --Altenmann >talk 03:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's a terrible and hard-to-fix dab page, but having no dab page is even worse. I've added Judiciary in the see also section, which might help with explaining what kind of supervision this actually is (going for more of a dict-def). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's a terrible and hard-to-fix dab page It's not just a hard to fix DAB page; it's an invalid DAB page. We are doing a disservice to readers by linking them to the South Africa civil procedure article, which appears to have invented the phrase "judicial supervision" out of thin air (if you look at the context in that article, it cited two decisions of the SA Supreme Court; the phrase "judicial supervision" appears in neither decision). Same goes for Barbour, as I explained above. I agree that this should be an article, but an uncited dictionary definition and invalid/confusing DAB entries is worse than a red link in this case. I know @Altenmann created this in good faith because he wanted someone to write an article on this, but creating an invalid DAB based on searching the phrase "judicial supervision" on Wikipedia and linking to articles that use the term once or twice without checking whether their usages are cited in reliable sources or are even valid legal concepts is not the way to do it. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> - I see nobody jumps in to improve Wikipedia here, so according to the Russian joke спасение утопающих дело рук самих утопающих (saving of the drowning men is in the hands of the drowning men themselves), I started writing the missing articles. Don't complain on their poor state, because I aint no lawyer. --Altenmann >talk 17:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact a lawyer. Judicial supervision of executive acts is not a concept in US law. It is a made up term that is not cited to anything from the Barbour Wikipedia article. It's not even mentioned in the case being discussed in that passage. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to improve Wikipedia; I don't want to make up legal terms based on uncited OR in other Wikipedia articles, which is what that article would be. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, I think this is now a valid DAB, so I will withdraw my nomination later today. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (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.