Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurispedia


 * 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 speedy close per bad faith nom. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and Requests for checkuser/Case/Mynglestine. Non admin closure, if someone wants to reopen, go ahead. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurispedia
Short, unsourced article on website with no claims to notability. Wyington Duarm 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per nom, no sources. Mynglestine 04:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

However, unlike a lot of other sites that take a Wiki article verbatim and call it their own, Jurispedia at least acknowledges that it's imitating Wiki. I can only surmise that the reason that Wiki hasn't sued Jurispedia is that this legal research site got permission. Or Wikipedia overlooks these things "pro bono" (for the greater good). Mandsford 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is called judging a book by it's cover. I hadn't heard of Jurispedia until the article, but it's obvious that the short text will increase.  The website is "inspired by Wikipedia" and copies its format; surfing to it is like ending up in a parallel universe run by attorneys.
 * Comment. Ok, that may have been a joke, but since you're a relatively new user, Mandsford, I feel compelled to mention the policy on copyrights in case it wasn't and you actually don't realize the wide freedom to reuse content granted by Wikipedia's GFDL licensing. Pinball22 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. per comment. Notable government wiki. --Edtropolis 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sites with no sources don't deserve articles. That's why we deleted Encyclopedia of Stupid and Encyclopedia Dramatica and all that other non-notable crap. Mynglestine 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia pages with no sources should be sourced, not necessarily deleted. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non notable per above.  It's also not a government wiki.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article already lists two sources and more can be found (ie in Social Computing Magazine). A poor article should be improved, not deleted. Evouga 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: This may be a bad faith nomination: from an account created only yesterday, nom's put up several articles for deletion.   There may also be sockpuppetry at work; User:Mynglestine is likewise a near-SPA, and has strangely (and solely) chimed in on all nom's recent AfDs.      RGTraynor  18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The two sources listed are kind of weak - the United Nations summit paper is by Jurispedia's creator, and the BILETA conference paper is a teacher's proposal to use it in a class. The former isn't independent of the subject, and the latter doesn't really say much - it's barely over a page long. If there are other sources, I'd be interested to see them, but what I've seen so far doesn't say much for the site. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A good start on an article on a notable subject. The two sources given are sufficient to start out with--a substantial article from the creator, and a small one to show that others know about it. . DGG 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 21 June 2007 (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.