Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's jury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 --JForget 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- People's jury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No references whatsoever (violates WP:CITE, et al.); tons of original research (violates WP:OR); poorly-written/-worded; biased (violates WP:NPOV); juries are covered in MANY other more-relevant articles (i.e. "Jury"). Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a type of non-judicial jury that is being closely studied in the UK. The article needs better citations but I don't find it egregiously POV. The "external links" section is obviously the article's sources, and yes, you're not supposed to do it that way but give the newbies a chance. (The term is also in use in China now, for what looks like a kind of advisory civil jury, but that belongs elsewhere.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject is a subset of Jury, just as melons are a subset of fruit. There are citations there, they just aren't in the 'references section'; that's certainly not a deletion argument, however, as that can be solved by pretty much anybody. As to the POV issue, I guess I just don't see it. Celarnor Talk to me
- Keep. A valid subject for an article, different from the jury article as explained by User:Dhartung. I think the POV issue is that both headings in the article are "Benefits of ..." - however, the problem is not necessarily the POV but the structure of the article and style of referencing used, which can be solved and is not a reason for deletion. --Snigbrook (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per above points.Londo06 11:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have reverted the article back to close to how I originally wrote it. It looked as though a number of contributors had been confusing People's jury with a legal jury. Hacve also added references. Matt Stan (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
