Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurispedia (3rd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jurispedia

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

The reliable third-party sourcing and available references for this particular, barely notable, subject seem rather scarce when put through the Google search engine. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the third nomination; the last was in 2007 and is listed as "second" in the list to the right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while useful to lawyers perhaps, there seems little relevance outside its target audience. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I certainly hope that "relevance beyond its target audience" isn't a valid reason to delete, because you can nix all of Wikipedia on that basis... Plus, "barely notable" is still notable. It seems to me the main problem of this article is that it is a stub and not marked as such (I've added the {{law-stub}}). -- BenTels (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One would like to think that Wikipedia would give stub articles about other Wiki encyclopedias the benefit of the doubt. For those of you feeling the need for this stub to meet more concrete standards for inclusion, here is a LINK for an academic conference paper by Esther Hoorn entitled "Using the wiki-environment of Jurispedia in legal education." —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I detest Eventualist arguments, so I will try to refrain from making one. It seems to me that while the relevance to reference ratio is rather high for this entry, it is precisely because the topic is relevant that we should uhm.... uhmm.... (DAMMIT!) give other editors an opportunity to expand the stub into a full-feldged article with more sources by keeping. But I will qualify the odious argument by saying that if the article is kept, but is in essentially the same condition at some arbitrary point in the medium-term future, then delete with glee and malice. Either people are motivated to fix things, or things don't get fixed. Mtiffany71 (talk) 07:04, 2 October 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.