Deletion of Jurispedia (4th nomination)

Comment: In the nearly ''four years'' since the first AFD, the article has hardly changed.  In particular, no |reliable sources have been added to |verify the content let alone support |notability.  That suggests to me that notability is never going to be established and in turn that supports deletion, in spite of the no-deadline argument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: as passing .  "''but the reasoning behind keeping it in years past was the promise that the article would be improved, which it never has.''" is not a valid reason to delete.  Improving articles is a matter of editing, not AFD, via .  I also don't see any promises to improve in the previous AFDs being used as justification.  I'm seeing use in Scholar and news, with more than trivial coverage ('''''most are not in English, which is never a reason to delete'''''). And yes, the article certainly does need work, including more citations, which would be a great reason to look them up or comment on the talk page of that article, or tag the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DEADLINE)