482:
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.
481:
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
Knowledge that is
511:
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
496:
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
247:
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
248:
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.
302:- 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.
430:. 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 Knowledge. Notability isn't language specific either.
198:
103:
97:
92:
87:
283:). 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.
459:
is clear enough: "The threshold for inclusion in
Knowledge is verifiability" and I claim that four years is long enough to establish that this material is not verifiable.
159:
192:
339:
277:. 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 (
82:
389:. 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.
357:
531:
502:
464:
394:
17:
448:
132:
127:
566:
535:
521:
506:
491:
468:
439:
398:
362:
330:
311:
292:
257:
238:
65:
136:
271:
but the reasoning behind keeping it in years past was the promise that the article would be improved, which it never has.
213:
180:
527:
498:
460:
390:
119:
49:
326:
48:. Article has had references added during the AfD, the need for improvement is not a justification for deletion. (
581:
36:
580:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
352:
174:
322:
517:
487:
435:
288:
253:
170:
249:
234:
206:
220:
478:
411:
407:
346:
274:
58:
513:
483:
431:
307:
284:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
273:" is not a valid reason to delete. Improving articles is a matter of editing, not AFD, via
123:
186:
230:
559:
266:
53:
378:
303:
153:
456:
419:
386:
382:
115:
71:
377:
since the first AFD, the article has hardly changed. In particular, no
574:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
418:
doesn't mean 'no deadline but less than 4 years'. Secondarily,
229:
Wiki-based website lacking any sort of notability whatsoever.
280:
most are not in
English, which is never a reason to delete
512:
doesn't prove it can't be: you can't prove a negative.
149:
145:
141:
414:
pretty much declare that argument as a non-argument.
205:
444:
Which of the four conflicting points of view in the
104:
Articles for deletion/Jurispedia (second nomination)
98:Articles for deletion/Jurispedia (4th nomination)
93:Articles for deletion/Jurispedia (3rd nomination)
88:Articles for deletion/Jurispedia (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
584:). No further edits should be made to this page.
340:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
219:
8:
338:Note: This debate has been included in the
337:
80:
557:, because its sufficiently notable.--
7:
78:
24:
526:I said "evidence" not "proof".
83:Articles for deletion/Jurispedia
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
449:Knowledge:There is no deadline
385:the content let alone support
1:
497:your claim with evidence.
601:
567:04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
536:16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
522:12:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
507:08:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
492:02:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
469:19:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
440:18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
399:09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
363:17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
331:16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
312:14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
293:14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
258:03:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
239:01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
66:01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
577:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
422:is clearly about being
528:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus
499:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus
461:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus
391:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus
77:AfDs for this article:
451:do you feel trumps
381:have been added to
44:The result was
565:
365:
343:
321:per all above. --
63:
50:non-admin closure
592:
579:
564:
455:? Secondarily,
379:reliable sources
360:
355:
349:
344:
323:Reference Desker
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
59:
56:
34:
600:
599:
595:
594:
593:
591:
590:
589:
588:
582:deletion review
575:
477:Essays such as
358:
353:
347:
166:
130:
114:
111:
109:
106:
75:
62:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
598:
596:
587:
586:
570:
569:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
402:
401:
373:In the nearly
367:
366:
334:
333:
315:
314:
296:
295:
260:
227:
226:
163:
110:
108:
107:
102:
100:
95:
90:
85:
79:
76:
74:
69:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
597:
585:
583:
578:
572:
571:
568:
562:
561:
556:
553:
552:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
364:
361:
356:
350:
341:
336:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
297:
294:
290:
286:
282:
281:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
259:
255:
251:
246:
243:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
105:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
576:
573:
558:
554:
514:Dennis Brown
484:Dennis Brown
474:
452:
445:
432:Dennis Brown
427:
423:
415:
374:
370:
318:
299:
285:Dennis Brown
279:
278:
270:
262:
244:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
45:
43:
31:
28:
479:WP:DEADLINE
416:No deadline
412:WP:NOEFFORT
408:WP:DEADLINE
275:WP:DEADLINE
265:as passing
250:Wickedjacob
193:free images
424:verifiable
387:notability
375:four years
116:Jurispedia
72:Jurispedia
231:LiteralKa
560:Milowent
428:verified
160:View log
475:Comment
304:Carrite
245:Comment
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
453:policy
426:, not
383:verify
371:Delete
267:WP:GNG
171:Google
137:delete
446:essay
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
55:Monty
16:<
555:Keep
532:talk
518:talk
503:talk
488:talk
465:talk
457:WP:V
436:talk
420:WP:V
410:and
395:talk
327:talk
319:Keep
308:talk
300:Keep
289:talk
269:. "
263:Keep
254:talk
235:talk
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
46:keep
345:--
221:TWL
158:– (
61:845
563:•
534:)
520:)
505:)
490:)
467:)
438:)
397:)
342:.
329:)
310:)
291:)
256:)
237:)
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
52:)
530:(
516:(
501:(
486:(
473:'
463:(
434:(
393:(
359:0
354:A
351:/
348:N
325:(
306:(
287:(
252:(
233:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.