Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurispedia (2nd nomination)


 * 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. John254 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jurispedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not cite any references our sources, and seems useless to me. 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of sources is a reason for improvement, not deletion. And the article does include several links.  Edward321 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edward321. This nomination was incomplete.  I have finished it. --Maxamegalon2000 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A lack of sources does not automatically mean that the article should be deleted, to the contrary, it means that more sources should be added. And I don't se how it's useless either. Calgary 05:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Calgary.--H| H irohisat  Talk 06:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * DEFINITELY Keep I don't see why this has been nominated. Mr pand 08:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edward321. Hut 8.5 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Lack of sources is a problem when there is no notability established for this site. I dont see enough references from independent sources for this to be notable at this point.   I think this fails WP:WEB Corpx 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Impressive sponsorship, and developing into a major resource. DGG (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Has 2 academic sources. Wl219 12:36, 23 July 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.