Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurist


 * 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. Clear WP:SNOW consensus that this should exist in some form and can be developed further, notwithstanding any issues with its current state. In other words, see WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jurist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced. I think that it's better to just have separate pages for lawyers, judges, etc.. ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 00:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't delete plausible search terms. We might plausibly replace this content with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary listing, or a disambiguation page for lawyers, judges etc., but you can do that with ordinary editor tools without the need for an AfD.  We certainly shouldn't turn it into a redlink because there's a good chance someone would type "jurist" in the searchbox.— S Marshall  T/C 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps SNOW, largely per S Marshall. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 01:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, could be made into a quality article, significant coverage in secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect, but to what? "Legal profession" redirects to Lawyer, while this article covers a broader range of roles.  Right now the article is about the word "jurist" not about the people themselves, in violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  I would like to see an article about all people working in the field of law, however "Jurist" would probably not be a good title since it is rather obscure and used in different ways in different countries.  In the USA it usually refers to a judge, as the article itself notes. Borock (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think S. Marshall and I are so far apart on this. Borock (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also possible to redirect to judge since this seems to be its most common meaning in English speaking countries. A sentence or two could be added to explain different shades of meaning. Borock (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Absolutely a notable topic, and distinct from judge, attorney, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is? Here is what the article itself says: 'Members of the general public are largely unaware of the term and are likely to confuse it with "juror".[citation needed] Although the word "jurist" can technically be applied to anyone having a thorough knowledge of law, American and Canadian lawyers usually use the word only to refer to a judge. The term "legal professional" may be used for convenience. Within the legal community usage of "jurist" is usually restricted to eminent judges or academics.' Borock (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a valuable term linking Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt etc. (and supporting category tree) in a way that the alternatives would not. (That said, I do appreciate the limitations of the existing article text; if there was a consensus that it is too weak, then a redirect to Jurisprudence could be an alternative.) AllyD (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support a merge with Jurisprudence, mainly because that is such a good article and jurists are people who "do" jurisprudence.Borock (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Compare, for instance, Archer and Archery.Borock (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Distinct from lawyer and therefore notable — a jurist being a legal expert as opposed to a practicing attorney or sitting judge (although the latter may also be the former while most of the former are also the latter). There are content problems here, a bit too much "dictionary" in tone, but no reason to anticipate that this editing matter is insurmountable. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it would not be unreasonable for someone to search for this term, nor would it be unreasonable ot start an article "John Smith (dates) was a nationality jurist etc". Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do think this article is walking the line on WP:DICDEF, but that does seem like something that can be improved through normal editing. I don't think any one article such as Judge or Lawyer would make a good redirect target, since the term jurist is not exclusive to any one of those specific topics; if nothing else it could be turned into a type of disambiguation page that explains that "jurist" could be used to mean any one of several things. - SudoGhost 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Melville Madison Bigelow, Centralization and the Law: Scientific Legal Education (1906), p. 219:
 * "Let us assume that you have learned all the rules and definitions and know the history of all the decisions of the courts. Are you then a lawyer? The Faculty may say yes; the State may say yes; the Bar Association may say yes; but what will the world say — the world of clients, that is the real world in which the lawyer lives and moves and has his being? The world may say yes, but the world's assent is always given grudgingly and under compulsion. Must the world say, 'This man is a lawyer'? No, not unless you can do the work of a lawyer. Your legal learning may entitle you to the title of jurist, but that is a different thing. A man may be both a lawyer and a jurist, but a jurist is not necessarily a lawyer, nor a lawyer necessarily a jurist. Both must possess an acquaintance with what we call the law, but that is all. The work of the jurist is the study, analysis, and arrangement of the law — work which can be done wholly in the seclusion of the library. The work of the lawyer is the satisfaction of the wishes of particular human beings for legal assistance — work which requires dealing to some extent therefore with people in the office, in the court room, or in the market-place. The relative importance of the lawyer and the jurist is not material to this discussion. Any highly civilized society requires both lawyers and jurists, both philosophers and men of affairs. As a mere matter of fact, there is a greater demand for men of affairs than for philosophers, for lawyers than for jurists; but the number of persons which the interests of society require should engage in a particular occupation, has nothing to do with the question of the importance of the different kinds of work done by those persons. It is important however to note the fundamental difference between the work of the lawyer and that of the jurist."


 * Cheers! bd2412  T 17:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the same definition of "jurist" that the article uses. I am not saying either is wrong Borock (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. I link to this article often, but I was under the impression/delusion that it once had a section on the meaning of "jurist" as it pertains to ancient Roman jurisprudence (as in Gaius (jurist)). In that usage, it isn't a mere lexical item. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2013 (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.