Deletion of Judgepedia

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:BLAR)

Comment: I'm going to go against the tide here and say that I don't think this meets .  The sources provided are for the large part either trivial or in marginal and obscure sources that don't suggest that they're reliable.  I acknowledge that Judgepedia itself has been cited ''by'' reliable publications, however this is irrelevant in the context of determining notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I haven't seen significant coverage of Judgepedia in independent secondary sources, as required by . I don't think a merge into Lucy Burns Institute would work either, as that article doesn't appear to be notable either. Both should go, IMO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: for the moment. Wikipedia is not short of paper. While it is mentioned in other articles and while there is content imported into Wikipedia from that site, it benefits the readers to know something about the source. We have articles on obscure authors and on what are now obscure journals often because they are cited in Wikipedia articles. However I have strong reservations if text can be imported from Judgepedia and I do not think that it is a legitimate reliable sources but should only be used under  criteria, if so then this page can not be justified as useful to Wikipeida content. I intend to pose a question about this issue involving copyright permissions on the appropriate places
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT)