Talk:Law Practice Magazine
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Edcolins in topic Proposed deletion inappropriate under current Wikipedia guidelines
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merger proposal and notability
editI don't see anything in this article that can't be handled by a single half-sentence in the ABA article. I see no evidence of independent notability. -- THF 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I oppose the merge in ABA article. Notable magazine: see, for instance (obtained from a Google Scholar query on "Law Practice Management"), citations in [1] (ref. No [4]), [2], [3] (ref. No 2.) These are just three random citations - a deeper exploration of Google Scholar would certainly reveal more citations. --Edcolins 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the notability tag for now, but feel free to reinsert it if my evidences are considered insufficient under WP:N and WP:BK. But please explain then. Thanks. --Edcolins 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- This doesn't persuade me as to notability. A hundred other law reviews are notable by the standard of the cited-in-a-footnote-once-every-other-year. My blog is cited in law reviews more often than that.[4] What's the grounds for an independent article rather than a side note in the ABA article? The ABA publishes all sorts of stuff, it's not all notable. THF 02:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I respectfully disagree with your opinion. The article appears to be notable to me. Having articles on sources such as specialized magazines is invaluable. By the way, by admitting that a merge in ABA is in order, you have taken the opinion that the content of the article should be preserved. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says:
- "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)."
- If you think the content should be kept, then I think an independent article would better present the topic, with corresponding external links to the ISSN entry, and so on. Cheers. --Edcolins 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I respectfully disagree with your opinion. The article appears to be notable to me. Having articles on sources such as specialized magazines is invaluable. By the way, by admitting that a merge in ABA is in order, you have taken the opinion that the content of the article should be preserved. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says:
Proposed deletion inappropriate under current Wikipedia guidelines
editThe proposed deletion (PROD) is inappropriate since, as indicated above, the deletion is not uncontroversial. I explictly indicated that I respectfully disagreed with your opinion as mentioned above.
- "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates." (see WP:PROD)
--Edcolins 07:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
🔥 Top keywords: Akademia e Shkencave e RPS te ShqiperiseAlexandria Ocasio-CortezBilderberg GroupCristiano RonaldoDong XiaowanMinecraftOperation GladioPrimal cutRiot FestStrictly Come Dancing (series 7)Main PageSpecial:SearchUEFA Euro 2024Wikipedia:Featured picturesInside Out 2Callum Styles.xxxCleopatraDonald SutherlandZaheer IqbalHouse of the DragonDeaths in 20242024 Copa América2024 ICC Men's T20 World CupUEFA European ChampionshipCopa AméricaLyndon DykesJessica AlbaBilly IdolSonakshi SinhaYouTubeSherri Papini kidnapping hoaxTom KimSha'Carri RichardsonThe BikeridersSabrina CarpenterThe Boys (TV series)Cristiano RonaldoJeff KentJ. Robert OppenheimerJacob FatuChappell RoanChé AdamsProject 2025Christian PulisicTaylor SwiftMaharaja (2024 film)The Boys season 4Bridgerton