Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth jurisprudence

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 due to increased sourcing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth jurisprudence

Earth jurisprudence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is some evidence that the term "earth jurisprudence" or "earth justice" is used, but not widely. This article is largely speculative and original research, for example listing the attributes that a putative earth justice model might include for some societies. Nothing firm to go on here, of course, becxause no such system actually exists. Overall it looks to me as if the concept is too new and thus far too poorly defined to permit of a verifiably neutral article. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - per well-reasoned nom. No reason for us to think this is anything more than a little-used neologism that it would be highly difficult to write a decent article about: certainly current version fails minor matters such as WP:ATT and WP:NOR. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep With conferences going back to 2001 and the involvement of respected institutes of higher learning, this seems possibly notable. --killing sparrows 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm changing my vote here. The article is undergoing significant changes and is now much better sourced. (added sig) --killing sparrows 09:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Only 1 of the 15 references using the name in the title. No evidence for general use of term. DGG 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per DGG, WP:SYNT, almost a neologism. Perhaps there is a better title? Smmurphy(Talk) 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the inherent problems with Earth jurisprudence is that it is a relatively new field and that is why there are not a lot of references to date. However, the concepts are now being taught at some of the world’s leading universities (the book Wild Law by Cormac Cullinan being a text book on many environmental law courses) and senior academics and politicians have been directly addressing Earth jurisprudence in conferences and talks since 2001 (see History section in this article). The concept of Earth jurisprudence is also now guiding and inspiring a number of legal departments in different parts of the world, from Ethiopia and Ghana, to the United States. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Because the concept is new, it is difficult not to use what Wikipedia call buzz words. However, you can find a growing use of these descriptives, for example, see this month’s Guardian newspaper article, 'Earthly rights'. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a very large body of published works - books and papers - on the subject of Earth jurisprudence. See the Literature section within the article, which is by no means exhaustive. --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you help me identify an editor to assist us in writing the article in a more encyclopaedic style? --Lesley Fairbairn 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I offered to do this on the creator's talk page but have heard nothing back. I think a merge and redirect to Environmental law a more feasible alternative but would be willing to discuss it with you here. (added sig)--killing sparrows 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Earth Jurisprudence

  • Thank you for your pointers. We can easily provide all the evidence you suggest (names of respected legal scholars who have written about the topic, non-trivial mention in legal publications, classes being taught in law schools. (Please also see the recent additions to the History, with the many names of significant and respected independent academics, politicians and leading thinkers involved in the development of Earth jurisprudence since 2001.) I will consult with my colleagues and get back to you with further specific evidence. In the meantime, while I gather evidence, I refer you to two recent leading newspaper articles - Stephen Harding, 'Earthly rights', The Guardian newspaper, London, April 2007; and Simon Boyle, 'On thin ice', The Guardian newspaper, London, November 2006. --Lesley Fairbairn 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merging with the Environmental law article is not an option as the concept of Earth jurisprudence is not a branch of law but a radically new and separate branch of thinking which requires a reform in the present legal system. I will consult with my legal colleagues and articulate this more clearly. --Lesley Fairbairn 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources for the subject, for an article to eventually be well-attributed, without indications of OR. MURGH disc. 09:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, regarding nominators concern for NPOV. I have found one scholarly article with critique of the EJ model and will add a criticism section to the article for balance. --killing sparrows 09:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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.