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. The article has been substantially updated - enough so that I believe it has satisfied the nom's concerns and reasoning for deletion. As well the one delete !vote has been changed. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Justice[edit]

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

Clearly intended to promote the Oxford initiative rather than be an encyclopaedia article about open justice, extent of quotes is beyond what is considered fair use Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as promo. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The large quote from R v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner is public domain in the United States under the edict of government rule and would in any event be compatibly licensed under the OGL. James500 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Open justice" produces 53 pages of results in GBooks. The article isn't so overtly promotional that it should be deleted, and not rewritten, on that grounds alone. James500 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we don't delete it, I'm not sure what we'd have left after editing it. The stuff before the quote is all unsourced, the quote doesn't mention the term "open justice", the invocation of the Oxford effort appears to misunderstand what that effort is, and what follows that is definitions, so we're running into WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I don't think this is here to promo Oxford, I think it is here to promo "open justice". --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of reliable sources say that ex parte Kaim Todner is about "open justice": Emerson, Human Rights and Criminal Justice, at para 9-72; Clayton and Tomlinson, Fair Trial Rights, 2nd Ed, at p 62. James500 (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the first five paragraphs do not cite any sources is not a reason to delete the article unless thorough attempts to verify that material have failed. If one wanted to find sources for the third and fourth paragraphs, the logical thing to do is to run searches like "open justice"+secret. And one does find references to secret courts, trials, judgements and evidence. James500 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't evaluate the notability of a topic or the verifiability of any assertion just by looking at a Wikipedia article, because notability and verifiability are not determined by anything in Wikipedia. They are determined by the existence or non-existence of external sources. James500 (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second and fifth paragraphs might to some extent be supported by this and other sources that come up in a search for "open justice"+transcript. James500 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the results in GBooks, I have no doubt that open justice satisfies GNG. There are entire chapters of books devoted to it such as: [1] [2] [3]. James500 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a mess. However, the underlying concept of open access to judicial proceeding and transparency in judicial decision making is quite notable.-- danntm ^T _C 00:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with reasoning as put forth by Danntm (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Danntm and Cirt, but hopefully article improved as per WP:HEYMANN, notable topic with much coverage; don't know whether should be spelled Open Justice or Open justice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There used to be a juggler who juggled an ax, and would explain that what he was juggling was George Washington's ax, that over the years they had just replaced the handle. And the blade. I feel we're facing something similar here; we have an article where the content is bad and the title is wrong, but if we just replace those two things... well, we could have any article we pleased, if we just replaced those two things. Admittedly, the expected title change in this case is small (if we're talking about the idea of open justice as opposed to some specific Open Justice campaign). I am certainly willing to apply the WP:HEYMANN standard - it could be a stub, it would just have to be a well-sourced stub - but short of that, I'm looking at a good candidate for WP:TNT. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move: posted the above before seeing that Thomesulcer had already put in quite fine work in Heymanning it; it is now a viable article, and should be moved under the appropriate title of Open justice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The article is now at Open justice. James500 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Problems fixed. James500 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2014 (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.