Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.A.I.L. 4 Judges

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 delete. Rough consensus favors deletion, and their arguments seem to outweigh the reasons for retention. –MuZemike 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.A.I.L. 4 Judges

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

This is a big giant op-ed piece on a non-notable organization that grossly violates the no original research policy. Moreover, the organization's web site listed at the bottom of the article redirects to a Network Solutions page. Further, the citations from reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times, CBS 2 Chicago, Northwestern University School of Law) don't even mention the organization described by the article while the link to the Fresno Bee citation doesn't even work. At best, two paragraphs consisting of 10% of this 10,000-byte op-ed could be salvaged for an article called South Dakota Amendment E (2006), which 89% of the South Dakota electorate voted against (the article itself admits that this hasn't even had sufficient signatures to appear on any other state's ballot). OCNative (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a mess, and the suggested move to South Dakota Amendment E (2006) may be appropriate. Deletion, however, is not. Once notable, always notable, and the group (or at least the amendment) was arguably notable in 2006, based on this National Public Radio story (inexplicably listed under "External links" rather than References) and this coverage in Dakota Voice. The New York Times in this editorial called the amendment the "wackiest and potentially most far-reaching of the judge-bashing schemes", and this Google News archive search shows further coverage of the organization's activities. Amendment E was clearly a bad idea, but I think that it and the organizations that supported it are both notable on the basis of the media coverage at the time. I would argue that any citizen initiative that makes it to the ballot is notable, although the less controversial ones could be included in the article on the election which included them. — Eastmain (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should be noted (in terms of assessing notability) that many of sources noted aren't about the group J.A.I.L. or Jail 4 Judges or whatever it's supposed to be called, but about the initiatives; as this article is supposedly about the group, that makes it a different category (he says, starting to rethink his Mild Keep). (And to explic the "inexplicable", the reason those things weren't in "References" is that there wasn't a reference list on this article until yesterday, when I did a little cleaning up converting inline direct links to more appropriate references. It was only in doing so that I saw what a mess it all was.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild ~~keep~~ delete - the group has gotten enough coverage elsewhere that it does have a valid place in wikipedialand. However, this article is a mess. I've cleaned up some of the formatting, but it is heavily underreferenced, reads like a personal essay in many points, has rather blatant POV slants being added to it even now (I just saw a new edit that seems to make it a goal to prosecute judges for mere controversy in their rulings), and there's been some major WP:COI involved; the webmaster of the group has edited repeatedly, the page was founded by someone who was later bounced for making death threats against a user, and appears to have been material taken from the group's website. It really needs some editor with time and willingness to strip it down severely, and leave an objective and direct short piece. This is not an organization that has had a substantial effect; it's a history of failure with no lasting impact, and thus doesn't need much depth. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Added later: their lack of impact does cause notability concerns; the coverage is more about the amendment than the group. Their lack of impact fails to give a sense that this is merely an unfortunate overlook in coverage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. J.A.I.L. 4 Judges itself is not notable. The 2006 Amendment E race may be notable and worth an article. This article is a mess, full of original research, non-reliable sources, POV, and a conflict of interest. --Weazie (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but gut and completely rewrite. I would argue that any grassroots movement able to raise as big a stink as this organization did should be considered notable, but I would not object to a move to South Dakota Amendment E (2006) in the alternative. Groupthink (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's relevent information and such information is likely be of interest of people. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That it could be of interest to some people is not a good reason to keep. There are tons of things that could be of interest to people that don't belong in this encyclopedia... Spiesr (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is basically a long essay in favor of the ideas of the group, which seems to have little notability in itself. The article may qualify as a WP:coatrack, "a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"." --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Comment. The current state of the article is not germane to the question of whether or not it should be deleted. The thing to consider is not "Is this article broken?" but "Is this article fixable?" Groupthink (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over The material here is too biased to be kept, even in the history. It could only be fixed by rewriting from scratch. There is one adequate source for a article titled this way, not under the name of the amendment, the ABA one. [1] DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The material can be rewritten from scratch without resorting to deletion, and it should be kept in the history as a referencable record of what doesn't belong in the article. Groupthink (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2010 (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.