Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Struck Jury

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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Metamagician3000 10:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck Jury[edit]

~~Dictionary definition, and from what I can find, there isn't much more that can be added. If not delete, either merge with voir dire or move to Wiktionary. Jesuschex 03:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~In addition, I just discovered a copyvio with [1]. Jesuschex 03:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

That source is The Nuttall Encyclopaedia as stated in the article. It's no longer under copyright protection. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. Jesuschex 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's only a definition at the moment, but it's tagged as a stub and it definitely has the potential to grow beyond just a definition. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged as a stub for almost nine months and nothing has changed. If you think it can be expanded, please, do so. Prove me wrong. Jesuschex 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Not only is this a dicdef, it's one that's not remotely close to being in current use in the legal field. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When and where did the struck jury system start? How does it normally work? What juristictions used and still use it? What are the pros and cons? Here's a link that shows current usage of the term and dicusses some issues with it. As a stub, we should be discussing it's potential and not it's current state. Applying arbitrary timeline requirements for turning a stub into a real article seems a bad idea to me. -- JLaTondre 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a dictionary definition. Ted 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be an outdated legal concept. It's useful to noone. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - better to have a stub than nothing. Google Scholar gives 40 hits, most under JSTOR which I can't access. Appears to possibly have another meaning in current usage based on Google Book results. It was in 1902 important enough to be covered in text books for the New York City schoolchildren. Term appears in records of U.S. appellate courts from as recently as the 1990s. Has appeared as a term of importance in U.S. Supreme court cases. Appears in course curriculum descriptions for some U.S. law school courses. "sofixit" appears to apply to those who feel it has been a stub for too long. GRBerry 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "sofixit" applies even more to those who feel it should be kept. I'm not going to fix it, unless you believe that nominating it for AfD is fixing it. I think those who believe that it could turn into a good article ought to prove this and do it yourself. Jesuschex 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You could write an encyclopedia article on it. In theory. Myciconia 08:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I had the time tonight, and did a major expansion that de-stubbed the article. It certainly is not a dictionary definition any more. GRBerry 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my nomination ... I believe it's surpassed a dicdef. Jesuschex 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is more than just a dictionary definition, and I think this article could be made into something good. --Eastlaw 05:43, 11 May 2006 (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.