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. Article has had references added during the AfD, the need for improvement is not a justification for deletion. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jurispedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wiki-based website lacking any sort of notability whatsoever. LiteralKa (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm wary of ever voting to delete an article that has survived multiple AfDs in the past, but the reasoning behind keeping it in years past was the promise that the article would be improved, which it never has. More to the point, however, is whether or not the topic itself is worth an article rather than whether the article as currently written is worth anything. Glancing through Google scholar, there does seem to be various mentions of jurispedia. At the moment, however, I'm not sure that the coverage rises to the level of significant coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG. "but the reasoning behind keeping it in years past was the promise that the article would be improved, which it never has." is not a valid reason to delete. Improving articles is a matter of editing, not AFD, via WP:DEADLINE. I also don't see any promises to improve in the previous AFDs being used as justification. I'm seeing use in Scholar and news, with more than trivial coverage (most are not in English, which is never a reason to delete). And yes, the article certainly does need work, including more citations, which would be a great reason to look them up or comment on the talk page of that article, or tag the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One would think that with the backlog at New Pages starting to grow, more productive work making inclusion decisions could be done there rather than rehashing this for the third time. It's just a stub, it's a serious resource, don't pick at it. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. --Reference Desker (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the nearly four years since the first AFD, the article has hardly changed. In particular, no reliable sources have been added to verify the content let alone support notability. That suggests to me that notability is never going to be established and in turn that supports deletion, in spite of the no-deadline argument. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOEFFORT pretty much declare that argument as a non-argument. No deadline doesn't mean 'no deadline but less than 4 years'. Secondarily, WP:V is clearly about being verifiable, not verified. It should come as no shock when a website that primarily appeals to non-English speaking people (per the refs that were easily found) isn't quickly referenced on the English Wikipedia. Notability isn't language specific either. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the four conflicting points of view in the essay Wikipedia:There is no deadline do you feel trumps policy? Secondarily, WP:V is clear enough: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" and I claim that four years is long enough to establish that this material is not verifiable. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Essays such as WP:DEADLINE have been tested by time and are often respected the same as many guidelines because the consensus of editors agree that they should. You've only been here a couple of months so let me just say that there is a big, big difference in websites designed by rigid policy, and one like Wikipedia that is based on consensus. And yes "verifiability". That does not mean it IS verified, it means that it is ABLE to be verified, that is all (I thought I had made that point clear earlier, but I guess not). The article has no contentious claims and is not a BLP, and frankly, more effort has gone into arguing what should be obvious, than the effort it would take to source it. That said, it still passes the notability GUIDELINES, which means it passes the criteria for inclusion. Quoting the guidelines and policies is not the same as working with them for years and understanding how they are interpreted here. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the perceived inadequacies of other editors do not contribute to the discussion and might be seen as disruptive. My point was that four years of failure to verify the material is some sort of evidence that it is not verifiable. You say that it is able to be verified -- please support your claim with evidence. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being new isn't inadequate. Not looking at the citations on the page, or using the search links in the AFD itself MAY be perceived as making an inadequate effort before interjecting. You are simply viewing the guidelines in a more rigid fashion than most editors. Four years of not being sources doesn't prove it can't be: you can't prove a negative. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said "evidence" not "proof". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because its sufficiently notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:14, 23 April 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.