Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgepedia

Judgepedia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 work 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)[reply]

Comment - The best sources about Judgepedia appear to me to be this article [1] profiling the organization in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, this article [2] 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 [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]