Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General jurisdiction

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. Daniel (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General jurisdiction[edit]

[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)

As this article has been tagged uncited for over a decade how can the reader know that it is true without doing their own research? If the reader is non-human such as ChatGPT it could spread possibly untrue info widely. Also the dePROD reason including the words ‘not be non-notable’ is hard to understand. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC) WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR as article has now been cited thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this is an important concept in U.S. law, addressed by a number of U.S. Supreme Court cases. BD2412 T 18:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes sorry WITHDRAW I had not noticed you were already improving the article Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jurisdiction#General_and_limited_jurisdiction: concept is indeed important in U.S. law, but is already covered, briefly, by the target article. Adding a mention of Stump v. Sparkman would complete the merge. Not enough here for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @OwenX: That is a reasonable solution, though the extent of coverage from the LII suggests that there is more to add. If merged, I would suggest that Limited jurisdiction also be merged. BD2412 T 21:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree re: merging Limited jurisdiction into the same target. Owen× ☎ 03:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited now. Merging can be discussed elsewhere but I suspect, it might be easier and more understandable for other articles that have to distinguish the concepts to have two separate articles to link. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles. There are numerous periodical articles entirely about this topic, such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and many more in Google Scholar. James500 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but please note that Chidgk1 has asked to Withdraw the nom. I post separately just in case that escapes notice. This article meets GNG with sourcing from gScholar (and pretty much everywhere else). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2023 (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.