Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgepedia


 * 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   no consensus. This was not an easy close. Numerically, the keep arguments are in the majority, but I don't find most of them to be persuasive. The non-persuasive keeps boil down to:


 * Keep because it could be merged into Lucy Burns Institute
 * Keep because other reliable sources have cited material	in Judgepedia.
 * Keep because Wikipedia articles have cited Judgepedia, so it benefits Wikipedia readers to know something about Judgepedia.

None of which have any foundation in wikipedia policy. The most persuasive of the keep arguments was 's list of what he claims are reliable sources (Marketing Weekly News, Telecommunications Weekly, and Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution). Although there are good counter-arguments that these are insufficient to establish WP:N, they were (just barely) enough to keep me from calling this a clean delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Judgepedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A notability tag was placed on the article, and after my repeated attempts to establish notability via the insertion of what I deemed to be reliable sources, another editor was left unsatisfied that the article was notable, and the notability tag was re-instated. If the article's subject is truly not notable, it should be deleted, rather than just leaving it with a notability tag that can't seem to be addressed Schematica (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – There is a discussion underway at Talk:Lucy Burns Institute about merging Judgepedia into that page. OP has said a merger would work, and would not work. A WP:BLAR for this page was recommended. Well then, keep so that the BLAR can be accomplished. (Or at least close this AFD so that discussions can be consolidated.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I haven't seen significant coverage of Judgepedia in independent secondary sources, as required by WP:GNG. I don't think a merge into Lucy Burns Institute would work either, as that article doesn't appear to be notable either. Both should go, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The best sources about Judgepedia appear to me to be this article profiling the organization in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, this article  in the New York Times ("Those brush fires also translate into a host of new Web sites and tools that the alliance hopes will gain hold. It now boasts three 'pedias:' Judgepedia.org for vetting judges at the state level; Ballotpedia.org for initiatives and elections; and SunshineReview.org for transparency in government"), and this article  in Politico ("The nonprofit and nonpartisan Lucy Burns Institute, which publishes WikiFOIA, Ballotpedia and Judgepedia, is out today with a list of the 15 top races that its staffers are following closely...." article then proceeds to the list the races, including judicial races covered on Judgepedia). However, I've been told on the article's talk page that none of these sources, individually or together, establish sufficient notability. Schematica (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The NY Times and Politico sources only mention Judgepedia in passing. They're what's called incidental coverage and do not establish notability. The MetNews source certainly covers Judgepedia in more depth. The issue there is that MetNews is a tiny news outlet with an extremely limited local circulation (actually called "tiny" by the LA Times here, here). The ultimate question is whether significant coverage only by such a small outlet satisfies notability requirements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Another source on the website is this. FWIW, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have used Judgepedia as a source. 32.218.34.133 (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The first source you mention is of questionable reliability. It was published by PR Watch, a branch of the Center for Media and Democracy, which is largely an advocacy organization. Over the years I've seen comments in the Talk userspace going both ways on the reliability of PR Watch sources. As for Judgepedia being cited by the NY Times and WaPo, those citations are what's called incidental coverage and do not establish notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As for Judgepedia being cited by the NY Times and WaPo, those citations strongly suggest that those highly reliable sources consider Judgepedia to be a reliable source. 32.218.34.133 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about whether Judgepedia is reliable. We're talking about whether it's notable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (As an aside, Judgepedia is an open wiki and therefore it is absolutely not a reliable source, no matter how it's been cited.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Well heeled RS have have used this pedia in a tangential form. However the detailed article from the (much) lesser known MetNews (but nonetheless still a quality RS) should be enough to keep.  Though WP:WEBCRIT says "multiple" "non-trivial" mentions from RS establishes the threshold, the growing number of cites makes deletion seem like throwing the baby out with the bath water.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by the growing number of cites? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw about a dozen RS citing Judgapedia for one thing or another. 3 or 4 were from 2014, so it appears it is gaining traction as a resource.  Unfortunately that was on my desktop which is now shut down for the night.  I'll try and find that for you later.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No need, I just didn't understand type of citations you were referring to. Thanks for clarifying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep for the moment. Wikipedia is not short of paper. While it is mentioned in other articles and while there is content imported into Wikipedia from that site, it benefits the readers to know something about the source. We have articles on obscure authors and on what are now obscure journals often because they are cited in Wikipedia articles. However I have strong reservations if text can be imported from Judgepedia and I do not think that it is a legitimate reliable sources but should only be used under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT criteria, if so then this page can not be justified as useful to Wikipeida content. I intend to pose a question about this issue involving copyright permissions on the appropriate places. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems prior to 15 June 2009, text could and was copied into Wikipedia articles from Judepedia articles. I therefore think keeping an article is useful -- or if not an article, a redirect to a paragraph in another article that mentions Judgepedia and explains what it is. This has been is done for Wikinfo for which there is some content in Wikipedia (eg see Harry Vardon), and the use of having a mention on Wikipedia was shown to be useful while Wikinfo was down. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have initiated a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and stated that Judgepeida is not a reliable source but under certain circumstances can be used under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not only is it cited by respected publications, but it also seems to be modestly notable based on coverage about the website itself. I found coverage in two journals, Marketing Weekly News and Telecommunications Weekly, and a book,Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution.- MrX 13:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Links please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Judgepedia article. The book MrX mentions is already used as a citation, as is the article in Telecommunications Weekly. Schematica (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You added these sources. They don't include links. Could you please supply links, or the relevant excerpts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Citing sources, links aren't required: "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections." Books are usually in libraries, and almost always on Google Books . I personally used my HighBeam subscription to access the Telecommunications Weekly article. Schematica (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for you to post links in the article. I'm asking for your help here on the talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked "could you please supply links" and I did. Now you don't want the links after all....? Schematica (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A link to the front page of a 210-page book isn't helpful. The community needs to know how these sources were cited. As you added the citations, presumably you read the sources. Remember that editing here is a collaborative process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So very sorry my link wasn't helpful to you. How could I be so thoughtless. Next time, perhaps consider searching for "Judgepedia" within the Google Book edition with the handy-dandy search bar. In about two seconds, voila!


 * Page 167 "Judging the Judges"


 * "In the previous chapter we discussed the idea of reviewing the performance of sitting judges who are standing for reelection. One of the more robust online models for achieving this goal is is called Judgepedia, which fashions itself like Wikipedia and offers one of the biggest databases on judges and courts. But there's a catch. The problem with "wikis" is that they often overweight the beliefs of their contributors. This results in some rather curious postings and omissions on Judgepedia....yet nowhere on the Judgepedia site does it mention why the Ninth Circuit's decisions continually get overturned: because they are activist hard leftist, and do not reflect the limits of our Constitution. Judgepedia actually goes out of its way to direct its readers to a "persuasive empirical argument that the Ninth Circuit is not liberal leaning...." Schematica (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't strike me as significant coverage, particularly in the context of a 210-page book. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (gab)  @ 19:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, I'm going to go against the tide here and say that I don't think this meets WP:WEB. The sources provided are for the large part either trivial or in marginal and obscure sources that don't suggest that they're reliable.  I acknowledge that Judgepedia itself has been cited by reliable publications, however this is irrelevant in the context of determining notability.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:07, 30 August 2014 (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.