Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caselex


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Caselex

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed PROD. Not quite /blatant/ advertising, but pretty damned close. Plus dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Page updated to counter arguments for deletion. Caselex is a high impact service, see award won in 2008 and classification provided by epractice.eu listed under sources. The alliance that has built and supported the service is substantial, however if you are not into European law it may be hard to grasp the value and contribution of Caselex. However the pure fact that the service is supported by the European Commission represents a ground to include the service. The included sources demonstrate the points made in the article. Ellenbeate (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete for failing WP:SOURCES, WP:COMPANY and, as there are no sources, WP:OR. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 13:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Caselex has been covered by many reliable sources in many languages, certainly compared to other online law databases: Caselex: 31,300 hits on Google; Lawtel: 14,300 hits; "Scots Law Times": 13,900 hits; JustCite: 5,600 hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.192.220 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)  — 82.156.192.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Case law reporting in Europe, and for the European audience, is in the Stone Age compared to the US. This is partly due to language and cultural barriers, and equally about national publishers not moving to cover international content for their national audience. Not even the leading international publishers covered by Wikipedia have been systematically covering case law on EU law topics like Caselex. This is why the Caselex service is a leading example of how Europe can finally move towards case law reporting, tearing down previous barriers and leading the way as best practice example. The service is notable and the current presentation cannot be seen as a marketing plot.--Nwschk (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Nwschk (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KeepI have worked for the European Commission (basically the European Government). Its support is only awarded to worthy initiatives that Europe is in need of to move ahead towards its political objectives. Caselex is also supported by the leading associations representing most of the lawyers and judges across Europe. I presume none of these would be interested in distorting the market. So why support to Caselex? Such support is only granted because there is a recognised need from a societal perspective which the private sector, or the market, does not deal with. Why then should it not be included on Wikipedia? To me it is notable, it has demonstrated its support and links to the societal value, and this service is not built on unpublished facts, undocumented research, speculations or wild ideas. Harmonisation of law and Europeanisation of law are key points on the political agenda in Europe. The consortium and its supporters lends sufficient credence to the role Caselex plays in this context.Rodemackertje (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — Rodemackertje (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ Talk 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have to say that this argument for keeping an article, because the European Commission says so, must be the strangest I have yet encountered. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. 1. I use the service in real-world work, so probably it is notable. :)) 2. Like any startup, it will either pick up or vanish. It does not qualify automatically under notable website guideline. 3. The article has issues that can be edited out (peacocks/weasels), these are not arguments for deletion. 4. Ultimately it's all about twisting general notability rules. Some would say the sources are good, others will object that there are no major independent reports (no reuters or bbc or whatever your favorite newswire). But keep in mind (as the anon already said) that EU legal scene is quite a closed and fragmented realm, nowhere near as public as Mongolia or the United States. NVO (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am unable to find any significant coverage about this company. It may become notable, but it doesn't appear to be right now. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep major international service, descriptive article. The paragraph about the types of law included may not be necessary as an internal linkfarm, but otherwise it is not in the least promotional. The sources are adequate. News reports are not necessary. DGG (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable organization which whilst not likely to be much covered in newspapers is still adequately sourced given its only really been in existence for a year. RMHED (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.