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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paternity fraud[edit]

Paternity fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Warm Worm (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is men's rights activism disguised as a legal information, violating WP:PROMOTION. Paternity fraud is not a legal concept, and the term occurs almost exclusively within MRA literature. Because of this, though the article has a large number of sources, they are almost all child support cases involving intentionally misrepresented paternity or news articles about those cases. None of the sources address the general topic of "paternity fraud," which, for a purported law article, violates WP:NOR. A version of this article meeting WP:NPOV already exists as misattributed paternity. The collection of minor cases—that, as far as I can tell, do not actually mention the concept of "paternity fraud"—with legal citations mask the fact that intentionally misattributed paternity does not itself meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, and there is no neutral reason for it to have an article of its own. – Warm Worm (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - News search shows plenty of uses of this term, including in headlines and as a legal term - see here. Also, there is an old and lengthy discussion about merging Paternity Fraud and another article at Talk:Misattributed paternity. If the article is biased then it should be flagged and rewritten. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are news sources on particular cases, which is why the article so heavily relies on them, but I cannot find any reputable legal sources discussing the overarching topic, and without that I don't see how the article can avoid WP:NOR. Presenting this a distinct and notable kind of fraud is itself biased, and so I do not see how the article can be rewritten with a NPOV. Warm Worm (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Worm: Wikipedia does not require "legal sources discussing the overarching topic" for something to meet WP:GNG. There is more than enough coverage of the topic in reliable sources, in addition to specific cases such as this ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court, which refers to "paternity fraud" repeatedly, and, incidentally cites the articles "The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud" (Family Law Quarterly) and "When Daddy Doesn't Want to Be Daddy Anymore: An Argument Against Paternity Fraud Claims" (Yale Journal Law & Feminism). So there are your reputable legal sources discussing the overarching topic. You also have this description in the ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, when it concured that this was a legitimate fraud and the case may proceed; in this ruling: "“Paternity fraud,” also known as “misrepresentation of biological fatherhood” or “misrepresentation of paternity,” “occurs when a mother makes a representation to a man that the child is genetically his own even though she is aware that he is not, or may not be, the father." Misattributed paternity is a more generic term that I can see covering everything from babies switched at birth, royal lineage, sociological impacts; basically things not related to criminal charges and case law. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia: WP:GNG requires secondary sources, and for a legal concept those should be legal sources. This is not an unreasonably high bar: if a putatively legal concept doesn't appear in any law textbooks and encyclopedias, why should it appear in Wikipedia? Both of the articles you mention specifically acknowledge that it is not a standard legal term: Henry says "In typical discussions, however, the phrase 'paternity fraud' is rarely used in deference to the preferred phrase 'paternity disestablishment,'" but he prefers "paternity fraud" for rhetorical reasons; Jacobs calls it "Part of the American vernacular." Warm Worm (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Iowa decision, it's worth noting, was that paternity fraud falls within "traditional concepts of common law fraud ," i.e. that some cases of lying about paternity are instances of ordinary fraud, which is really the opposite of finding that "paternity fraud" is a distinctive legal concept. We have non-legal articles for common ways of committing fraud like credit card fraud and internet fraud, but with only a handful of cases, paternity fraud would seemingly fall far below that standard. Warm Worm (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Worm: "WP:GNG requires secondary sources, and for a legal concept those should be legal sources." Nowhere does it say that a "legal concept" requires legal sources; though there is coverage in legal sources. Your belief that a legal concept should appear in "law textbooks and encyclopedias" for it to meet GNG is not required either. Whether or not you or anyone else feels it has met the burden of being a "standard legal term" is totally not relevant, nor is there anywhere that says that is required. There are content-specific notability guidelines for subjects such as academics, events, sports, etc, but none for law that would establish that as a guideline; if you feel strongly there should be one for law, you might propose that at WikiProject Law. Whether the better title is "paternity fraud," "paternity disestablishment" etc is also not relevant toward GNG; that goes to WP:COMMONNAME. Nominator is reminded to please review and follow WP:BEFORE prior to suggesting an AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My vote would've been to merge the topic with misattributed paternity, since it appears to be a type of misattributed paternity, however I'm not sure how you would handle cases where there has already been a discussion to merge the topics and it was voted down. The fact that people voted to keep the article separate suggests (doesn't prove, but suggests), that they also believe paternity fraud is notable enough to stand on its own. I do agree with you that I'd like to see more sources that directly discuss paternity fraud as a topic rather than a giant list of examples. I'd like to see if someone can do something with the article before deleting it. Bali88 (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Additionally, clicking the "scholar" link at the top is very helpful in this case. Brings back many more journal citations about paternity fraud. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia: Take a look at some of those articles.

"Discrepant paternity, or what father's rights discourse calls paternity fraud, has become a rallying point for segments of the fathers' rights movement..." ("Who's the father? Rethinking the moral ‘crime’ of ‘paternity fraud,’" Women's Studies International Forum)

"Along with discovery of misattributed paternity, and providing the rationale for its perpetuation, has been the construction of the crime of paternity fraud as a neo-legal entity. The broader discourse of 'paternity fraud' has become the dominant way of understanding the need for paternity testing and a facilitative medium forunifying men disaffected by the Family Court and Child Support systems. " ("Paternity Secrets: Why Women Don’t Tell," Journal of Family Studies)

"Some men have sought financial redress for misattributed paternity arguing that it amounts to ‘paternity fraud’" ("Paternity testing: a poor test of fatherhood," Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law)

"They used the rhetoric of men’s rights activists to express their feelings about their situations in the broad terms of the discourse of 'paternity fraud'" ("Paternity Testing and the Biological Determination of Fatherhood," Journal of Family Studies)

"Men across the country calling themselves victims of 'paternity fraud' have banded together to create public awareness about the issue, and to effect legislative change." ("Disestablishment of Paternity and the Future of Child Support Obligations," Family Law Quarterly)

"On the whole, men’s rights activists demonstrate themselves to be the site of the creation and perpetuation of a powerful discourse embodied in the notion of 'paternity fraud'. "Power, Discourse, and 'Paternity Fraud' (International Journal of the Humanities)

This is not what the literature looks like for established legal concepts. Warm Worm (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Warm Worm: There is simply no requirement for coverage of a concept to "look" a certain way, which is, of course, wholly subjective. Please review WP:GNG: the requirement is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which this subject meets. The mere existence of the article does not set any kind of legal precedent, nor does its existence prove or disprove whether the subject is "valid" as a concept; it simply summarizes a subject based on what has already been recorded in reliable, secondary sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Warm Worm:, I suspect you may have made a case for keeping the article, but restructuring it. If enough sources reference Paternity Fraud as rhetoric used by MRA's, that makes the concept notable. There are plenty such topics covered by wikipedia. Bali88 (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject of deception as to paternity does indeed satisfy GNG. Topics as broad as this one always do. This expression does appear in 'legal' sources, such as the Law Quarterly Review ("Paternity Fraud" (2007) 123 LQR 337). As an aside: The best legal sources are those which are primary authority, not textbooks, as evidenced by the rule of law forbidding the citation of textbooks in court, with certain exceptions, something tantamount to officially classifying textbooks as unreliable. James500 (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Westlaw shows 98 law review articles on the exact term, plus it is covered in Am. Jur. 2d, in C.J.S., in Restatement (2d) of Torts, in A.L.R., in a bunch of state practice series, and so on. Lexis shows about the same. GBooks shows about 1K hits, which I assume would indicate that at least some of the books would be reliable (like Family Law: The Essentials, 3rd ed., by William Statsky). GregJackP Boomer! 07:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important legal concept. Minor4th 14:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important legal concept. Dimadick (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2015 (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.