Talk:frivolous litigation

Created entry for frivolous litigation

Created entry for frivolous litigation. With first sentence from en.wikipedia article w:Frivolous litigation. And with 6 citations to Usenet newsgroups. -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October–November 2018

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

frivolous litigation

SOP: frivolous (sense #3) + litigation. Compare "frivolous lawsuit" and "frivolous suit". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 01:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Compare with vexatious suit, and vexatious action, and vexatious litigation. See also Wikipedia article, at w:Frivolous lawsuit. -- Cirt (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Those entries should probably be deleted too – the fact that we have other SOP terms that no one has spotted yet is not a reason to keep this one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the policy page for SOP and deletion? -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WT:SOP. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers. I would argue that having the entry page here is very useful to readers. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete as it looks quite SoP to me, I'm afraid. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I did not find this as a written rule, but shouldn’t definitions (other than non-gloss defs) be the same POS as the term they purport to define? Sense #3 given for frivolous is a noun phrase.  --Lambiam 08:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a given. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment What purpose do we serve for our readers with this deleted? Doesn't it serve a useful purpose to keep? -- Cirt (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

We simply cannot have entries for all combinations of words that have been recorded. So we do not have entries for lamentable tale or unexpected demise, even though these might, individually, be useful for some readers. We need some criterion for deciding whether to include such combinations, and the current criterion is, essentially, that we do not include combinations whose meanings can be construed from the meanings of their constituent parts. If you want to argue that we should include this specific combination, you need to make the case that it has an unexpected meaning, like, for example, free lunch. Alternatively, you may try to have the criteria for inclusion modified, for which the venue is the Beer parlour.  --Lambiam 17:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

We could certainly have this entry kept. And more entries of the like. I'm not seeing any reasons put forth for why not to keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason is that it does not fit our criteria for inclusion, the same reason why we do not have entries for big nose or hot meal or a very close friend of mine.  --Lambiam 22:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all as SOP, speaking as an attorney. bd2412 T 23:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all, obvious case of SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion and citation pages for further research in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Archiving deletion discussions to talk pages is the usual practice in en wikt. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep or at least redirect with the use of Talk:free variable reasoning: this is only SOP since a dedicated sense was created in frivolous. The sense is specific to lawsuit/suit/litigation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the reasoning for keeping free variable? I see several different rationales proposed, not all of which are applicable here. While "variable" can not be substituted for another term, and synonym for "litigation" can be substituted for that word in this phrase - not just lawsuit or suit, but action, legal action, cause of action, pleading, filing, claim, etc. All of these can be cited. bd2412 T 22:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The multitude of the other terms, not all of which are synonyms, is a good point. I wonder why the 3rd sense of frivolous says "(law, said of a lawsuit)". On the other hand, even though the terms are not synonyms, they are all semantically rather close. In frivolous lawsuit,frivolous suit,frivolous claim,frivolous action,frivolous litigation at Google Ngram Viewer, frivolous litigation is currently most common. That said, I admit that maintaining all the phrases as separate entries with definitions is probably an unjustified maintenance burden, so I strike out my keep. I would still prefer a redirect to deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That might make sense if we were talking about a single phrase- it's not. The sense in question is used freely in a number of collocations, and not just with exact synonyms. Not only that, but the existence of the phrase frivolously filing shows that the sense isn't even limited to a single part of speech or to a single type of phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Good point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 15:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Blatant SOP, but, you know, perhaps there is a case for looking at a "common collocations" category. Ideally it would need an objective way to determine "common" though. Mihia (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete the whole lot. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Deleted as I see consensus that this is sum-of-parts. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)